Skip to main content

Full text of "Deconstructing Alan Watt"

See other formats

Deconstructing Alan Watt 

by Joseph Gallagher (2010) 

Contact author for any questions or comments here: 


pg. 2-11 

Alan's 6 Major Errors 


Chapter 1 

pg. 13-34 

Chapter 2 

pg. 35-39 

Chapter 3 

pg. 40-66 

Chapter 4 

pg. 67-98 

Chapter 5 

pg. 99-112 

Chapter 6 

pg. 113-123 

The B.M.R in the Bible 

pg. 124-153 


pg. 154-160 


After being a fan of Alan's for over 2 years, I now see him as a subtle NWO-Theosophist. Yes, in 
many areas, he's full of great information, pointing out various agenda-revealing writings 
(penned by even the elites themselves), and yes, he debunks the New Age/Theosophy and 
exposes Freemasonry- but when it comes to ancient history and religion, some of his assertions 
just don't add up. In fact, after delving into some of his biggest claims, I began to realize that his 
views concerning Judaism and Christianity sounded a lot like the Freemasonic/Theosophical 
version of history. Alan is part of the higher-NWO agenda of finally dismantling all of the 
religions. First, I want to focus on 6 huge errors committed by Alan in the field of ancient history 
and religion, then I'll go through his 3 'Cutting Through' books and his 'Waiting For the Miracle' 
(the published transcript of his '24-hour Lecture Series on Ancient History and Religion'- done 
in 1998 while guesting on Jackie Patru's 'Sweet Liberty' show. The 6 errors committed by Alan 
reveal him to be a propagandist of sorts for Freemasonry &Theosophy, and confirms that he 
indeed gives out bunk historical info, and his 3 'Cutting Through' books show that he perhaps 
even gives out plagiarized info (via Glen Kealey ). Alan incessantly maintains that the Mystery 
Religion is behind all religions, thus, the Freemasons (the ancient priesthood) have made all of 
the world's religions, but if that's not true, if the Mystery Religion has not in fact been behind 
every major religious movement of the past few thousand years, than Alan would be guilty of 
promoting Freemasonry. He'd be subtly amplifying their scope and reach, glorifying them by 
making it seem like they've always been the directors and custodians of Mankind's spiritual, 
technological, and societal progress. When Alan specifically lists all of the Freemasonically 
inspired trinity-esque religions in his first 'Cutting Through' book (on pg. 54) - calling them the 
'Old Time Freemason Religions'- he doesn't even mention the Babylonian trinity (instead, he 
focuses on the Egyptian one (and I'll answer why later) (though he does mention it (the B.M.R) 
in his interviews with Jackie). When he's asked specifically by Jackie at the end of the 1 st chapter 
in 'Waiting For the Miracle' about the meaning of the 'Let the brother receive the Light' phrase 
from Freemasonry, he fails to mention to that mostly Christian audience that 'the Light' refers 
to none other than Lucifer (as I'll show with a host of famous Freemason and theosophist 
quotes in Chapter 7). Juxtapose that with Alan's admission in the introduction to his 'Waiting 
For the Miracle' that the shows were done "as a form of deprogramming, very gradual 
deprogramming, to an audience who swallowed reality as it had been presented to them from 
childhood" (pg. 5 - 'Waiting For the Miracle - 1998) - makes it clear that he withheld that 
nugget of truth because he knew that it would only end up fuelling their Christian fire (though 
he did start dishing out the Lucifer connection by 2004). In hindsight, Alan's interpretation of 
the Bible and history that he initially imparted in 1998 upon that 'Sweet Liberty' audience 
meshed (for some strange coincidence I guess) with the Freemasonic/Theosophical-view-for- 
dummies. So what specifically led me to question Alan? It was in the summer of 2009, when I 

became aware of the Glen Kealey affair and the problem that he had with Andre and the 
Outlaw Forum . How he presented his side of the story concerning both issues whilst on-air only 
served to validate my suspicions. I also began to question Alan's evolution upon the radio- 
waves, trying to see from another angle why his view on Jesus in 1998 was so different from the 
one that he later espoused to callers on his own show in 2008. When he first appeared on 
Jackie's show, Alan made it seem like he believed in the existence of Jesus the Man, saying that 
he knew about the Mysteries etc., as he also gave an esoteric rendition for all of the Bible's key 
stories and characters (thereby linking it to the Mystery Religion and astro-theology) (and as far 
as how Jackie and Alan met, she said that he called her up one day out-of-the-blue, told her 
that he had been listening to her show, and that she "almost had the truth")- but in Oct 2007, 
before I had heard Alan's and Jackie's interviews (when I was just getting into him), I remember 
hearing him tell George Noory that Jesus the Man never even existed (and I had no problem 
with that, as I had already seen Zeitgeist a few months earlier, and had begun to believe that 
notion myself). About a half a year later, in May 2008, after I had already heard Alan tell a few 
callers on his own show that Jesus the Man never existed (and after I had ordered from him his 
'24-hour lecture series on Ancient History and Religion', as well as his 'Waiting For the Miracle', 
3 'Cutting Through 7 Books, and two DVDs)- 1 then began to hear him tell Jackie's audience (for 
the first time) that Jesus had knowledge of the Mysteries, that the story of him being taken into 
Egypt as a baby shows that he was connected to the Mystery Religion etc. I remember thinking 
at the time, 'why not tell them the real truth, namely, that he never even existed?' But 
obviously, the answer to my question would have been that Alan was only trying to "deprogram 
them" (in other words, help them, free them from their conditioning etc). (Jackie: You said that 
he had studied the mysteries and he became a renegade? Alan: He was openly (I say openly) but 
it was for those amongst the listeners who could understand the esoteric behind the stories that 
he was getting, but he was getting it out to the public and these were sacred things that were to 
be kept for the inner religion" - (Alan Watt on "Sweet Liberty" with Jackie Patru Dec. 8 th 2004). 
But in Sept 2009, well after Zeitgeist Addendum had been exposed as NWO propaganda, and 
after the Glen Kealey affair had become public knowledge, I started to do more research into 
ancient history, Theosophy, and the Freemasons. I started to notice 6 huge errors in Alan's 
work (in fact, had noticed small errors here and there since 2008), and given that Alan is 
tremendously smart, couldn't fathom how he could of made them (unless, of course, they were 
deliberate distortions). His 6 major errors made his 'l-want-to-deprogram-them-assertion' take 
on a whole new twist. Though Alan does point us toward great sources of information, when it 
comes to some of his grandest claims made in his 'Cutting Through Vol 1' (1999), we have to 
remember that we're never even presented with any footnotes or references that could back 
up what he says. On pg. 11 (the title says 'History and Religion'), he writes that "Humankind, in 
its present form, is over 190,000 years old", and that, "during the sixteen thousand years that 
comprised the last ice-age, ancient earthborn Troglodytes had already achieved and continue to 

possess to this very day a superior level of technological advancement to our own- within 
numerous fields of human endeavour- including fresh water diversion, hydraulics, plumbing, 
hydroponic gardening, transportation, communications, genetics, computing, optics, lasers and 
holography". On pg. 20, he says that "Jubal Freemasonry was formed 60,000 years ago"- 
apparently, when the Trogs created a kind of lay secret society, comprised of important 
generals and rulers from various regions around the world (binding their allegiance through 
oaths promising death if ever broken). So according to Alan, for tens of thousands of years, 
advanced cave-dwelling Trogs have either been manipulating nations from around the world to 
war with each other (through Freemasonry), or have engineered huge environmental 
catastrophes to wipe the face of the Earth clean every once in a while (bringing us back down to 
a basic level, and then having us repopulate it, again). So it must be stressed how this kind of 
far-fetched bullshit via Alan is never even qualified, and he gives no documentation or 
references whatsoever to back it all up. Turns out though, the Trogs stem from Kealey (as well 
as the Masonic encoding of the English language, the genetic engineering of the human race 
etc) (Alan actually put pictures and layouts taken from Kealey's published newsletters into his 3 
'Cutting Through' books) - but it's quite clear from Alan's narrative and choice of wording on pg. 
11 (when he says that Trogs have developed advanced technologies since at least the last Ice 
Age) that that is in fact his own personal view. But looking at the bigger picture, where in fact 
does his view and the Freemasonic one even begin and end? Wouldn't it be logical to assume 
that Freemasonry would love to have us think that Trogs exist? Or that secret societies have 
been running the show behind the scenes for Ages? It would have the desired effect on truth- 
seekers, no doubt, as most would think, "how could I ever change anything if they've been 
secretly controlling the world for tens of thousands of years, have genetically engineered the 
human race, and created all of our religions and holy books?" ("Remember that 'priests' wrote 
the 'holy books' of all peoples" (pg. 61 'Cutting Through' 1). "Where this writer differs from 
others is from the realization that humanity has never been free, that a highly scientific control 
of this Earth has always been here" (pg. 26 CT1). So if any of that is true, then it would be safe 
to say that the human race was nothing more than the Trog's/ancient 

priesthood's/Freemasonry's slaves- but if any of that's false, then Alan would surely be guilty of 
promoting Freemasonry/the Mystery Religion and dishing out disinfo. 

Zeitgeist, Theosophy & Freemasonry 

Thankfully, the unfolding Zeitgeist drama served to stress Alan's theosophical alignments. 
Zeitgeist obviously became too-big-for-its-bridges when the second one, Zeitgeist Addendum, 
rolled around, and tons of people smelled it for what it was: clever NWO propaganda. Without 
a doubt, it spurred many to critically reassess the first film, as they wanted to know what parts 
were perhaps bullshit (if indeed Joseph was a propagandist for the NWO & Theosophy (and he 
no doubt is, as he now claims that he doesn't believe the US was responsible for 9/11 (NY 

Times, March 16 th 2009: "the former may be most famous for alleging that the attacks of Sept. 
11 were an "inside job" perpetrated by a power-hungry government on its witless population, a 
point of view that Mr. Joseph said he has recently "moved away from". Indeed, the second film, 
the focus of the event, was all but empty of such conspiratorial notions, directing its rhetoric and 
high production values toward posing a replacement for the evils of the banking system and the 
perilous economy of scarcity and debt" 

( ). Released in 2007, and 
structured around 3 parts, the first Zeitgeist documentary exploded onto the internet. It attempted 
to reveal how our 'Zeitgeist' (our enslaving-given-vision-of-reality) came via the institutions of 
religion, government, and banking. It focused on Jesus/Christianity/the Bible, then 9/11, and then 
the Federal Reserve/world banking system. Already quite a number of years since many people had 
been awoken to the NWO and the reality of 9/11, and an even longer time after many people had 
been speaking about the nature of the world economy and privately-owned central banking, it 
nevertheless went viral on Google and caught the eye of millions. As far as 9/11 and the Federal 
Reserve went, of course it was spot on, and thus why it garnered such a huge following, so 
quickly, but in the first section of the film, the idea is presented that Jesus the Man perhaps 
never even existed, that his story derived from the Sun going through the 12 Zodiacal 
constellations, and that other characters and stories from the Bible were also esoterically 
predicated upon astro-theological concepts. Alan was asked about the Zeitgeist documentary in Nov 
2007 while being interviewed by George Butler and Charlotte Littlefield-Brown, and I heard him say 
that the entire Jesus-story was indeed nothing but esoteric astro-theology (he didn't specifically 
endorse Zeitgeist, but he did say in his own way that the Jesus-story was astro-theologically 
derived)- and at that time, I wasn't surprised, as I had already known by then that Alan's forte 
(the thing that no doubt differentiated him from other NWO gurus) was his focus on how the 
Mystery Religion was behind all religions (and how it revealed itself (and its agenda) throughout 
all their various stories (but only if exegetically interpreted using the proper esoteric prism)). At 
that time, Alan's opinion only served to cement my faith in the first Zeitgeist film, so I didn't think 
twice about checking out Peter Joseph's sources. At that stage in my truth-seeking, I still 
believed Alan's show-stopping-ultimate-premise that all religions had been created by the elites 
as a way of enslaving mankind. But when Zeitgeist Addendum was released almost a year later 
in September 2008, Alan came out a' drop-kicking. Alex Jones also had a heated on-air exchange 
with director Peter Joseph, exposing him as a fraud when Joseph said that he didn't believe 
there was conspiracy behind the idea of Man-Made Global Warming (see 'Climate-Gate' (Nov 
2009)). Alex then interviewed Alan, and both exposed Addendum's Venus Project' as nothing 
but socialistic NWO propaganda, envisioning an Utopian society of the near future without laws 
and money, and nobody working as machines and new technologies would liberate mankind. 
Digging deeper, people began to learn that Peter Joseph was connected to Theosophy (a'la Blavatsky 
& Bailey), and he actually began to indirectly quote Blavatsky whilst giving the introduction to 

his 'Zeitgeist 2009 Orientation Lecture' for the Zeitgeist Movement (without the audience 
knowing, of course). Theosophy, which means 'God Wisdom' in Greek (aka 'how to be a God' or 
the 'Serpent's Promise'- "Ye shall be as Gods")- is linked to Freemasonry as Helena Blavatsky 
(who was the first to write about 'Ascended Masters', co-founded the Theosophical Society' in 
1875 with Henry Steele Olcott and started the magazine 'Lucifer'), Annie Besant (her immediate 
successor that opened lodges all over the place (even in Canada)), and Alice Bailey (who was 
one of the most outspoken UN/NWO promoters and wrote a huge corpus of work whilst 
apparently channelling the Ascended Master known as 'Djwahl Kuhl')- were all Freemasons. 
Through Theosophy, Freemasonry was simply exporting and externalizing concepts that were 
to lay the foundation for the new 'New Age religion' (which was to help usher in their long- 
awaited for 'New World Order'). Bailey's writings are taught at all UN 'Robert Muller Schools', 
where the elites are trained into the ways of theosophy and world-government, and the 
Theosophists are no doubt, as proven from the actions of Besant, Socialists (and Socialism is also 
Freemasonry's underlying politik and weapon-of-choice). Freemasons are building a NWO, and the 
theosophists, seen especially from the writings and actions of Bailey, were no doubt a major 
driving force behind the UN. Alice Bailey started the 'Lucifer Publishing Company' in 1920, but 
after the name received too much heat, changed it to ' Lucis Trust ' in 1922, and from its 
beginning, was all about the 'Externalization of the Hierarchy': publishing books that contained 
key theosophical ideas for the New Age NWO (specifically, the belief in 'Ascended Masters'). In 
1922, Bailey also founded the Arcane School, and by 1954, had over 20,000 graduates. In 1932, 
Lucis Trust spawned the group called ' World Goodwill ', which is presently recognized by the UN 
as an NGO, and today, Lucis Trust wields enormous power and influence as it sits on the UN's 
'Social and Economic Council'. Because of its presence within the UN system, as well as explicit 
references to it and theosophy and Bailey's writings by former Assistant Secretary General 
Robert Muller, many have accused the UN of having a New Age ideology and theosophical 
agenda. To his credit, Alan did mention that Zeitgeist Addendum's opening scene connected it to 
Theosophy (when we're shown a video of Jiddu Krishnamurti), but even as a devout Alan-fan up 
until then, already listening to tons of his MP3s, the word 'Theosophy' still didn't mean a lot. As 
a boy, Murti was adopted by Besant in India, taken back to England, and then trained for the 
sole purpose of becoming the Theosophical Society's long-awaited for 'World Teacher' (who 
was supposed to impart upon the masses the NWO's theosophically-based religion). So to 
prepare the world, a massive organization called the 'Order of the Star in the East' was formed, 
with young Jiddu at its head. In 1929, however, Jiddu renounced his role, dissolved the Order 
with its huge following, and returned all of the money and property that had been donated to it 
( 'The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow' by Constance Cumbey 1983 - pg. 32 ). For the elites, the 
NWO cannot be complete until the New Age religion and Theosophy have been externalized 
into the minds of enough people from around the world. The NWO is all about unity, and to 
attain that, just as Bailey famously wrote, the minds of people must first be won. The NWO's 

very name (New Secular Order of the Ages) does reveal that it is antithetical to religion, but in 
reality, only the monotheistic ones. The Venus Project is in actuality a Freemason Utopia, as 
they badly want a vastly reduced world-population, thereby easier to control and monitor via 
their new technologies- and despite rightfully exposing the NWO pretensions of the Venus 
Project in Addendum, which was an attempt to get us to change our societal ideas, Alan has 
never once said anything about the first Zeitgeist film's possible connections to Theosophy, and 
how it's attempt to change our religious ideas (regarding Judaism and Christianity) might also 
be NWO objectives (it would even be an attack upon Islam, as it also makes the Old T. and Jesus 
the Man central). After people began digging into Zeitgeist l's sources, it turned out that many of 
them were Freemasons and Theosophists: Blavatsky was there, as well as Freemasons Albert Pike, 
Manly Palmer Hall (all admitted Luciferians), even NWO-theosophist Jordan Maxwell (whose 
admitted fave author is Blavatsky and says he can channel Pleadians (Jordan also narrated 
segments of Zeitgeist's 1 st section about religion)). It became apparent that the notion of Jesus 
being an astro-theological myth was only a modern idea, almost exclusively flowing from 
Freemasonry & Theosophy, and not from ancient waters. In fact, outside of the New Testament, 
Jesus of Nazareth is mentioned many times by Roman, Greek, and Jewish historians. Zeitgeist 1 
was in fact discreetly selling people the Freemasonic/Theosophical version of history, and it 
should have been renamed 'the Mystery Religion for Dummies' (as its viewers got subtly 
brainwashed into accepting concepts from the Mystery Religion and Freemasonry). Not 
everyone within Theosophy takes the stance that Jesus never existed though, for some of them, 
he's an Ascended Master, part of a spiritual 'Hierarchy' (Buddha also), and they say that the 
word 'Christ' really refers to an Office, not held by Jesus, but rather by Lord Maitreya (who sits 
above him and Buddha). Share International pushes this line of thought, and it was started in 
1975 by the theosophist Benjamin Creme, who claims he can 'overshadow' Maitreya's spirit 
(who made contact with him in 1959). They're officially recognized by the UN as an NGO, and 
even CNN has run their commercials, which declare the immanent arrival of the "New Christ" 
("someone whom people of all faiths' have been awaiting" (to get a good idea of how this story 
is playing out in the media recently Google: ' Never fear, a bright star will herald a new saviour Dec. 19 th 2008 ')). When one sees how the Freemasons and theosophists openly 
pledge allegiance to Lucifer in their own writings (the beautiful angel of light, who (according to 
them) bestowed upon Mankind the gift of intellectual freedom) - it becomes as plain as day 
why they're either trying to link the Bible to the Mystery Religion, Jesus to Ascended Masters, 
or deny the actuality of his historical existence. 

The Babylonian Mystery Religion & Freemasonry 

Even though the Zeitgeist-astro-theological-lie (and its purported connection to Jesus and the 
New Testament) has been thoroughly debunked by (not to mention decades of 
academic scholarship), Alan still maintains it by saying that he never even existed (and that 

alone makes him a promoter of Freemasonry/the Mystery Religion, and thus doing exactly what 
the NWO wants). (I'll go into more detail in Chapter 6, but the Zeitgeist-astro-theological-lie is 
the idea that the 3 stars/Kings of Orion's Belt pointing to the sun-rise on Dec 25 th and the Sun 
appearing to hang in the sky for 3 days near the Southern Cross constellation are the root of 
Christianity; that Jesus, Mary, and the 12 disciples are all astrologically derived (only being the 
Sun, Virgo and the 12 constellations); and that the Jesus-Sun-of-God story was shared (under 
different names) with the Egyptians, Hindus, Greeks, and Romans (Horus, Krishna, Dionysus, 
Mithras). But to connect Christianity/the New Testament to Dec 25 th , Zeitgeist lied when it 
implied that it was contained within the Bible, in reality, it's never even mentioned (and neither 
are 3 Kings/Wise-Men), so therefore, wasn't Jesus' b-day, and has nothing at all to do with 
Christianity. In fact, early Christians in Rome flat-out refused to celebrate the Roman 'Saturnalia' on 
Dec 25 th because it originally flowed from the Babylonian Mystery Religion (as on that day in ancient 
Babylon, people celebrated the rebirth of the Sun as symbolizing the rebirth of Nimrod the Hunter 
(he hunted men)). It came from the story where his wife, Semiramis (who was also his mother, 
apparently), went outside after his death, and saw, much to her surprise, a baby-tree sprouting out 
from a tree stump. She thought it symbolized Nimrod's rebirth, and thus why we have the custom of 
X-mas trees. Nimrod is also Baal, whose mentioned in the Old T. many times, and his face graces 
various monuments and parks throughout Washington D.C. He was the first Freemason/Builder, as he 
constructed a tower in Sumer, and according to the Book of Genesis Chapter 11, led mankind into 
an open rebellion against God. Thousands of years before Jesus the Man walked the Earth, 
Nimrod (a real historical character) was mythologized and made into a God (grafted to the 
whole Dec 25 th winter-solstice Sun-phenomenon); and then his wife was apotheosized into a 
Goddess (both then situated within a man-made trinity system, for other humans to worship). 
Tammuz (also an aspect of Nimrod) became the offspring resulting from their synthesis (the 
reborn Sun). This is how the Mystery Religion first arose, and from Sumer, was then exported 
across the world (same story, just different names). Thus Nimrod became Osiris, Semiramis the 
Queen of Heaven (aka Ishtar) became Isis the Queen of Heaven, and Tammuz, Horus (in India, 
Semiramis & Tammuz became Isi & Swara, in Asia, Cybele & Deoius, in Greece, Aphrodite & 
Cupid (her son with his mighty bow (just like Nimrod), in Rome, Fortuna and Jupiter, and in 
China, Shing Moo (whose pictured with a halo and holding a baby (" The Two Babylons' (1858) - 
Alexander Hislop - Chapter 2: Section 2: 'The Mother and the Child, and the Original Child') . 
To be fair, Alan did mention some stuff about the-Nimrod-Semiramis-Mystery 
Religion/Freemasonry-connection in the first few interviews that he had with Jackie (but only 
due to the randomness of her questions), but in his written work (his 3 'Cutting Through' books) 
he hardly says anything, especially on page 54 of 'Cutting Through' 1, where he specifically lists 
all of the various trinities from around the world that have been supposedly created by 
Freemasonry/the Mystery Religion. Even if it's not Alan's personal list, but a list via Freemasonic 
lore, its centerpiece is still the Egyptian trinity, and no mention is made whatsoever of the 

Babylonian one (despite it having an originary and historical aspect). Zeitgeist never mentioned 
the truth of Dec 25 th because the NWO-elites do not want people waking up to the Babylonian 
Mystery Religion, and instead wish to keep the heat on Christianity. Zeitgeist teaches that the 
Bible's stories and characters are all founded upon astro-theology (celestial movements), thus 
having no foundation in reality, and Alan, above all, wants us to think that it came via the 
Mystery Religion (which was controlled by the ancient priesthood). But in fact, the Bible has an 
objective basis as it deals with real historical events and characters, and ask any professor of 
archaeology or ancient history if you find that one hard to believe. We know that both trinities, 
the Egyptian and the Babylonian, inform each other as they have too many similarities (i.e 
Nimrod and Osiris are both cut up into many pieces)- but which one is older? Well, if Nimrod 
actually lived in ancient Sumer (the Old T. calls it 'Shinar'), and there never was an Osiris in 
Egypt, then that would tend to show that the Babylonian trinity was the original one. Most 
theosophical promoters usually focus on the Egyptian side (Osiris, Isis, and Horus) because 
connecting the historical Jesus and Mary to that mythical trinity (which was secretly based upon 
the real Nimrod & Semiramis) makes them seem more mythical and less real (at least by 
claiming that they were predated by an even more ancient myth (but even that doesn't work as 
Isis was in no way a Virgin: after reassembling Osiris' body, but failing to find his penis, she then 
constructed an artificial one, had intercourse with herself, and conceived Horus). However, 
associating them with Tammuz and Semiramis would surely back-fire as the Bible calls that 
trinity out as its enemy on multiple occasions. The NWO wants concealed from the general 
public that the Babylonian Mystery Religion is tied to Freemasonry and the underlying influence 
behind the architecture of various key cities from around the world, like Washington D.C & the 
Vatican- lest it awaken them to the NWO's over-riding Occultish aspect. The Bible relentlessly 
locks in on the Babylonian Mystery Religion/Freemasonry as Nimrod, whom it targets, is 
revered by Masons as the first Builder/founder of the Mysteries and the Priesthood. But at the 
top of the Babylonian religion (aka. Freemasonry), above the Trinitarian Mystery Religion, one 
will find Lucifer the Light-Bearer (the 'Force' whom they secretly worship). Even though 
Nimrod's Babylonian religion is clearly connected to Lucifer in the Old T.'s Isaiah 14 & 
Revelation's 17-19, the theosophists and the Freemasons want people to perceive Christianity as 
completely Made-up, and not High-jacked. Alan of course champions that view as he maintains 
that Jesus the Man never even existed and says in his 'Cutting Through' 1 that "they wrote the 
Bible and gave us the clue" (pg. 31) and that by "AD 140 an orthodox Church was leading, with a 
hierarchy of priests, deacons and bishops, and a few wealthy families within the Roman empire 
financed this particular sector of Christianity" (pg. 45). But any historical digging shows three 
things: 1) Christianity emerged organically via the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (Yeshua), who really 
did exist, as over 39 extra-biblical sources mention him 2) by 100AD, all 27 books of the New 
Testament were in circulation, and 3) after 300 years of vicious Roman persecution, brutally killing 
Christians right up until 300 AD (burning them alive or feeding them to the lions), Christianity 


(the New T.) then found itself high-jacked by the newly created 'Holy Roman Church' (who 
attempted to justify its rule by cloaking itself with the Bible). Alan has said in his 'Cutting 
Through' 1 that after the Mystery Religion/Ancient Priesthood/Roman-elite-families had 
created the entire New T., they then began killing Christians in the hopes of creating martyrs, 
which would then cause the Roman-elite-made-Christianity to grow and flourish (thus 
preparing the people for the take-over, when Rome would officially become Christian). But 
creating a few martyrs wouldn't cut it, to make the Roman-made Christianity successful, people 
would have had to have been reading the Old T. or the New T.- how else can you brainwash and 
pacify a people into accepting a new religion? But history reveals that Rome did everything in 
its power to suppress and eradicate the Bible, not promote it, as around 305 AD, the Emperor 
Diocletian ordered all copies of the Bible to be destroyed, and he was reputed to have bragged, 
"the Christian religion is now destroyed". Of course, the 'Holy Roman Church' (530 AD-1798 AD) 
claimed that the New T. validated its right to represent Jesus on Earth, but in fact, it revealed 
the Pope to be a 'false prophet' and connected his institution to the 'Anti-Christ' in the Book of 
Revelation, and they must have known that as they did everything in their power for over 1000 
years to prevent the Bible from being translated out of the Latin and into the vulgar tongues of 
Europe (actually making it illegal to own it upon the pain of death in the 12 th Century AD) and 
also why they gruesomely killed over a hundred million Bible-believing-Christians during the 
16 th Century's Spanish Inquisition. When keeping in mind that Greece and Rome had always 
followed the Mystery Religion, it becomes easy to see that the Roman Catholic Church has been 
preoccupied with the same: its concepts (calling Mary 'the Queen of Heaven'), symbols (the 
Zodiacal Sun, the Pope's Nimrod/Dagon fish-hat & bent cross), artwork (featuring Mary & baby 
Jesus just like Isis & Horus or Semiramis & Tammuz), architecture (the Obelisk and the Sun- 
pattern inlaid upon St. Peters Square), and the holiday of Dec 25 th - all reveal that it's nothing 
more than the Babylonian Mystery Religion in disguise. If Zeitgeist mentioned the B.M.R, then 
people would learn about its founder Nimrod (famously referred to as the first 
Freemason/Builder), and the Freemasons behind the NWO know that if too many people 
become aware of him, then that would inadvertently draw people towards the Bible (as it 
mentions him). It would no doubt compel truth-seekers to examine the passages where him 
and the B.M.R are specifically mentioned. The Bible exposes the B.M.R's founder (Genesis 
Chapter 10 reveals that Nimrod is Noah's great grandson (Noah, Ham, Cush, then Nimrod) and 
names all of the cities that he built in ancient Sumer (Gen 10:10)), objects of worship (the Sun & 
the Moon (him and his wife personified), but most especially, its abominable practice of 
sacrificing little babies by burning them alive upon the searing hot, outstretched arms of 
Baal's/Molech's statue (the Ammonites, Phoenicians, Zidonians, Canaanites, even renegade 
Israelites- all did this (and a host of others). If the Mystery Religion was indeed behind 
Christianity, and all religions for that matter (as Alan maintains), then undoubtedly the Bible has 
been tampered with by the ancient priesthood/Mystery Schools, but that view is highly 


problematic as the Bible specifically hones in on the Babylonian Mystery Religion/Freemasonry 
(mentioning it throughout the Old T & New T. ( Eze. 8:14-16 would be a good start). If it was 
tampered with, then why do we find passages exposing everything? (I'll list them in Chapter 7). 
Why do we find nothing justifying the Popes, the Queen of Heaven, or the Saints? (you'd think 
they would have gotten that right). Why is the Babylonian Trinitarian Mystery Religion and 
Freemasonry cast in such a bad light? Why is Lucifer, whom they secretly worship as a symbol 
for Reason and Intellect and the conveyor of the Mysteries (the Hermes/Thoth type-figure), 
written about in such a negative way? Castigating him as the ultimate deceiver, liar, and 
murderer? even proclaiming his inevitable and humiliating annihilation? But most importantly, 
if the Mystery Religion/Freemasonry had a hand in creating the Bible or tampered with it in any 
way, then why write about their own spectacular destruction alongside him? At the least, why 
not edit that out? In response to that, Alan has said that Christianity and the B.M.R were 
specifically set-up in the New T's 'Book of Revelation 7 by the ancient priesthood, as antithetical 
spiritual polarities, to be taken down at a later date (thus helping the rulers attain a new level 
of control over the entire planet going into the astrological Age of Aquarius). But that's a huge 
view, utterly glorifying the power and scope of the ancient priesthood/the Mystery Religion, 
and we need to see more proof from him than his usual hypnotic speech. To prove his case 
though, Alan tries to show in his 3 rd 'Cutting Through' book ('Esoteric Unveiled and the Meaning 
of Revelations in the High Masonic Tradition 1 (2003)) how the 'Book of Revelation' is nothing 
but an esoteric blue-print/business plan created by the Mystery Religion (I'll examine that later 
in a second part), but he ignores the fact that all of the Old Testament writings directly oppose 
the B.M.R, and some of them go back 3000 years (the youngest being about 2400 years old (the 
Book of Malachi))- so, if there was a plan to set-up spiritual antipodes as part of the Dialectic, 
then it must necessarily go back to the days of Babylon, and not have just appeared 2000 or so 
years ago with the advent of Christianity. 


Nowadays, the mono-theistic religions are on the defence, and arguably, on their way out, and 
without a doubt, the New World Order and various New Age authors and theosophists, want 
them destroyed. But the Mystery Religion, on the other hand, is making a huge ascent these 
days (embedded within the New Age/Theosophy, our corporate symbolism (i.e Starbuck's logo). 
Since the Millennium, it has made vast inroads into the Truth Movement, thanks to 
documentaries like Zeitgeist (a Google top-tenner since 2007 and now a world-wide 
movement), and NWO-shills/theosophical/Mystery Religion promoters like David Icke, Jordan 
Maxwell, Michael Tsarion, Peter Joseph, and of course, the most subtle of all (as he no doubt 
illuminates Freemasonry, debunks the New Age (and to an extent Theosophy)- Alan Watt. 


6 Massive Errors Made By Alan in the Field of Ancient History and 


So here are the 6 major mistakes that first alerted me to Alan's theosophical leanings. 
I'll briefly list them, and then go into more detail below (devoting a chapter to each 
one), and after that, I'll then list all of the passages within the Bible that specifically 
mention the Babylonian Mystery Religion, Nimrod, Freemasonry, Lucifer (to get a 
proper feel for Alan's incessant nucleic claim that the Mystery Religion spawned the 
entire Bible)- as well as a host of quotes from various Freemasons and authors. In a 
second part, I'll sift through more of Alan's 'Waiting For the Miracle', and his 3 'Cutting 
Through Books' (especially CT3, which focuses on the 'Book of Revelation' (where his 
case seems to be just a rehash of what Albert Pike said in his ' Morals and Dogma ' (in the 
pdf., look on page 414-415). 

1) The ancient Israelites never existed prior to the Babylonian dispersal into Judea 
around 400 B.C; & the language Hebrew is not ancient but rather a later addition 
via the A.D's = lies. 

2) The entire Old T. was originally written in Egypt in Greek as 'the Septuagint' by 72 
Mystery School priests around 280 B.C = a lie. 

3) 'Israel' = 'Isis Ra El': Alan maintains this theosophical word-trick (so does Jordan 
Maxwell) = a lie (I'll show other word-tricks that Alan proffers in the hopes of 
connecting the Bible to the Mystery Religion, and how he twists the meanings of 
words and loves playing the o\' theosophical trick of inverting Yahweh with Satan 
(something Freemasonry/Theosophy loves doing (i.e. Pike, Blavatsky, Bailey)). 

4) Jesus the Man never existed and is a myth based off other ancient pagan 
deities/saviours = a lie (over 39 extra-biblical sources mention him- including 
Tacitus- whom Alan uses as a source for the story of the Druids surviving some 
kind of massive planetary catastrophe in ancient times). 

5) Alan attacks Christianity as something completely created by the Mystery 
Schools, and not high-jacked. He says 5 key things: 1) At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, 
Constantine hammered out Christian dogma; and the early Church Fathers drew upon pagan 
elements when constructing Christianity 2) the Bible has been rewritten and tampered with 
many times; and hundreds of books were left out of it 3) Christianity was made-up by the 
Mystery Religion/Roman-elite-families as a way to better enslave the masses; 4) Paul never 
existed 5) Christianity was really a form of Gnosticism. = all lies. 

6) Alan props up the 'Zeitgeist-astro-theological-lie', which attempts to link 
Christianity/the New T. to the movements of the Sun & the Constellations = a lie. 


Error#l - The ancient Israelites never existed prior to the Babylonian 
dispersal into Judea around 400 B.C; & the language Hebrew is not 
ancient but rather a later addition via the A.D's = lies. 

Alan repeatedly attacks Jewish history, saying things like: 'the land of Israel was never 
referenced in ancient times'; 'King David and Solomon never existed'; 'the ancient Israelites and 
the Judaic religion did not exist prior to the Babylonian dispersal' (around 400 B.C); 'the Hebrew 
language did not exist in ancient times, rather being created by Maimonides in the 12 th Century 
A.D' (when he basically added in the vowel points to what was then Aramaic). Unfortunately for 
Alan, we have proof from solid physical sources, such as the Egyptian Merneptah Stele and 
other recent archaeological discoveries in Israel and around the region, that the ancient 
Israelites existed, and that Hebrew is a very old written language (going back to well before the 
10 th Century B.C). New archaeological sites in Israel prove that 3000 years ago, a thriving 
kingdom using Hebrew on its pottery existed, and strikingly, one of the translated pottery 
pieces discovered even makes reference to themes from the Old T. (underscoring virtues such 
as helping the poor and those in need, ethics totally unique to the ancient Judaic people, and 
foreign to other nations within the region (like the Philistines, Zidonians, Ammonites, Moabites, 
Canaanites, Amelikites etc). Alan told Jackie in their initial 1998 interviews, which became his 
} 24-hour lecture series on ancient history and religion', that Velikovsky revealed in his work that 
Hebrew derived from Canaanite (in 'Ages in Chaos' & 'Peoples of the Sea')- and most scholars 
today would probably agree with that (a proto-Canaanite tongue). Alan was trying to use 
Velikovsky (1895-1979) as part of an accumulative case though, to debunk Judaism and prove 
that the ancient Israelites never even existed, and as we'll see below, Alan then went to great 
lengths to answer Jackie's initial scepticism about Velikovsky by saying that he was a well- 
respected scholar who knew the archaeological data etc (she was asking how can we really 
trust him as a source). But in regards to Velikovsky, Alan flip-flopped seven years later, calling 
him a front-man chosen to push the idea at the turn of the century that there existed an 
ancient Israelite people (because no evidence existed in any ancient historical records, 
apparently). He did this in 2005, after Jackie had mentioned his famous and controversial take 
on the Egyptian Exodus again: when it occurred b/c of some planetary catastrophe occurring 
around the 15 th Century B.C. But this trashing of Velikovsky is completely understandable, once 
someone listens to Alan for a while, and then begins to actually read Velikovsky's work: for 
Velikovsky's corpus of work presupposes, and consistently proves, the existence of an ancient 
Israelite people (something Alan does not want to admit to in the slightest, as he maintains 
tirelessly that the 'Mystery Religion' (he never says "Babylonian Mystery Religion") is behind all 
religions (especially the Old Testament) and that no Judaic people existed until after the 
Babylonian dispersal around 400 B.C. But if Velikovsky says they existed, and Alan respects his 
view, then how can he still deny their existence? Why use a source that fundamentally 
disagrees with what you say? Incredibly, Alan also tells Jackie a few times that the 'Habiru' (the 
Hebrews perhaps) were in reality the 'Hyksos': the blood-thirsty Shepard-kings that invaded 
Egypt, ruled brutally for hundreds of years, and finally got expelled after an uprising. But 


1945 (and a revolutionary work that many of today's scholars are beginning to agree with: )- shows that notion to be nothing but fraudulent 
horse-shit (pointing out that such unfounded and deceptive associations had been made in the 
past by anti-Semite scholars). This is one of many cases where Alan flip-flops in regards to his 
sources, and where he gets debunked by them, and it doesn't end there, Alan gets debunked by 
historian Robert Graves (his own source for everything Judaic in his written body of work), and 
then later, we'll see how historian Will Durant gets flip-flopped by Alan, as he first plugs him in 
1998 during his '24-hour lecture series on ancient history and religion' (using him to back up 
many of his ideas, and also as a major source for all things having to do with Christianity in his 
written work)- but then in 2010, he tells listeners that he was front-man paid by the 
Rockefellers to write about history in such a way that it would "take away the hope from 

Let's look at 12 Alan-quotes in regards to this topic (in order, from Jackie's 1998 show, 

1) Alan on Hebrew being derived from Canaanite & the four-and-a-half-thousand-year old 
base in Cyprus, which was used to help coordinate all of the world's religions. He backs it all 
up by plugging Immanuel Velikovsky's work: 

"Alan: Hebrew actually was developed from the Canaanite language. They were coordinating 
the different religions at one point from that base. It's incredible. They found thousands and 
thousands of clay tablets with all these different instructions to priests, an international 
priesthood four-and-a-half thousand years ago. Jackie: I guess if I were listening to this program 
right now, and hadn't talked with you as many hours as you and I have from time to time, I 
would wonder, how do you know all of this, and how would we know that the information you 
have is accurate? Alan: Well, one of the best sources of information about the priesthood was 
'Ages in Chaos' by Immanuel Velikovsky. He was a fantastic scholar; he's accepted by all other 
scholars as being one of the top men really who went into the archaeology. He knew Wilkinson 
and all other top archaeologists. He studied all these findings and these records, and most of 
that information about Cyprus and so on is contained in his book. It's in the library, and it's a 
very well-known publication, if not you would get it at the university. He also wrote another one, 
a follow-up to it, called 'The Peoples of the Sea', which also has an awful lot of this 
documentation in it. Jackie: How do we know, they've changed history so much, how do we 
know that Immanuel Velikovsky's works were accurate? Alan: Basically he doesn't come out 
with any claims, he simply shows you the evidence that's been found. So he isn't bringing up any 
theories, except the obvious ones. He himself is Jewish, and he was astounded to find that the 
Hebrew language was actually taken from the Canaanites. The Canaanites had the same 
written language long, long before there was a nation of Hebrews. So he was rather 
flabbergasted when he found this out" (pg. 30 - 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

He wasn't flabbergasted; look at how quickly French came out of Latin. There were no Hebrew 
people in the late 3 rd Millennium; Abraham didn't leave Mesopotamia until around 2000 B.C 


supposedly, so it's obvious that Hebrew cannot be older than 3500-4000 years old. It would 
have had to have been derived from some proto-Semitic-Canaanite tongue, as Abraham settled 
in the land of Canaan (apparently). Alan will use this though as the foundation for his 
accumulative case that the ancient Israelites never existed, and that the Old T. is the ancient 
priesthood's/Mystery Religion's genetically modified literary organism. Without a doubt, 
Velikovsky's research into ancient historical/archaeological records has strengthened the case 
for an authentic Old T., as his work remarkably backs up the ancient Israelite Exodus account 
out of Egypt, by finding scientific and historical proof of a catastrophe hitting the Earth around 
that same time period, and then connecting it to similar accounts from Egyptian records. So 
what does Velikovsky's 'Ages in Chaos' really say? In fact, it makes no mention whatsoever of a 
base in Cyprus that was used to create all of the world's religions on stone tablets four-and-a- 
half-thousand-years ago (which would have been around 2500 B.C). However, it does 
extensively talk about the Tel Amarna Tablets, which were discovered in Egypt and have been 
dated to be from the 14 th Century B.C (about 3400 years ago). If anyone downloads the .pdf file 
of 'Ages in Chaos' and searches the entire book for all references made of 'Cyprus' (control + 
shift + F)- one will find nothing about Cyprus being a base used for coordinating religions. 
Here's what Wiki has to say about 'Ages in Chaos', and without a doubt, Velikovsky's seminal 
book actually undermines Alan's theories regarding ancient history and the Israelites (to see 4 
quotes from 'Ages in Chaos' that shed light on the origins of Hebrew via the Ras Shamra tablets, see 
the Appendix). 

From Wiki: "Velikovsky made a number of specific proposals in Ages in Chaos and his later 
works on ancient history, [edit] Ages in Chaos In Chapter 1, Velikovsky synchronised the Ipuwer 
Papyrus, from the beginning of Egypt's Second Intermediate Period, with the Biblical Exodus. 
The Ipuwer Papyrus was conventionally dated to approximately 350 years before the 
conventional date of the Exodus (1450 BCE). He identified Tutimaios as the Pharaoh of the 
Exodus (much earlier than any of the mainstream candidates). In Chapter 2, he identified the 
Hyksos with the biblical Amalekites. In Chapter 3 he identified the Egyptian Pharaoh Hatshepsut 
with the Biblical Queen of Sheba and the land of Punt with Solomon's kingdom. In Chapter 4 he 
identified the Egyptian Pharaoh Thutmose III with the Biblical King Shishaq who sacked 
Jerusalem. In Chapters 6 to 8, he states that the Egyptian Amarna letters from the late 18th 
Dynasty describe events from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, from roughly the time of King 
Ahab" ( http://en.wikipedia.orR/wiki/Ages in Chaos#Ages in Chaos ). 

Here's the 'Table of Contents' from 'Ages in Chaos': 

their past (1) What is the historical time of the Exodus? (5) Plagues and portents (12) Upheaval 
(19) An Egyptian eyewitness testifies to tibe plagues (22) Egypt in upheaval (25) The last night 
before the Exodus (29) "Firstborn" or "chosen* (32) Revolt and flight (34) The Hyksos invade 
Egypt (37) Pi-ha-Khiroth (39) The Ermitage papyrus (45) Two questions (48) 

Chapter II: THE HYKSOS Who were the Hyksos? (55) The Israelites meet the Hyksos (57) The 

upheaval in Arabia (61) The Arabian traditions about the Amalekite pharaohs (63) Hyksos in 


Egypt (66) Malakhei-roim-King-shepherds (69) Palestine at the time of the Hyksos domination 
(71) The length of the Hyksos period (75) The expulsion of the Hyksos in the Egyptian and 
Hebrew records (76) The Hyksos retreat to Idumaea (80) The Queen Tahpenes (85) Location of 
Auaris (86) Hyksos and Amalekite parallels (89) The confusion of Hyksos and Israelites and the 
beginning of anti-Semitism (94) World history in the balance (98)". 

Go here to search through 'Ages in Chaos": 
en&ei=2geRTNa6KYiksQOX9v2xDg&sa=X&oi=book result&ct=result&resnum=l&ved=0CBcQ6A 

2) Alan on the history of the Jews: 

"Jackie: The Hebrews were the Jews? Alan: They were only called Jews, the survivors who came 
back from Babylon and settled in Judea. They then took the name of Jews, and even that's very 
controversial because when they came back from Judea, about 400 B.C, they'd all intermarried 
with the Babylonian women. You can read that in the Bible in the Book of Ezra" (pg. 31 'Waiting 
for the Miracle' - 1998). 

3) Alan on Maimonides, & he plugs the famous 20 th Century American historian Will Durant: 

"Alan: Maimonides is a hero to the Jews because he finalized the Hebrew religion and gave it 
vowels and so on, which it didn't have before. He was a high priest to the Jewish people. His 
work about the Khazars can be found in Will Du rant's Series from the universities, the main 
volume being 'The Age of Faith by Will Durant'. You'll see Maimonides' writing about these 
people who eventually adopted the Jewish faith wholesale (a whole population), even though 
they had no genetic roots to the ancient Hebrews'" (pg. 31 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

4) Alan on the origins of Hebrew, Maimonides, and how the first five books of the Old 
Testament (the Pentateuch) were originally written in Greek (not Hebrew); after Jackie asks 
him a question, he evades it by supplying two books that do not answer that question: 

"Alan: They were supposed to have gone into captivity by Nebuchadnezzar in Babylon and then 
they emerged fifty years later, not as Hebrews but as the people called Jews. Instead of 
speaking the Hebrew tongue, only fifty years later they are all speaking Aramaic right into the 
day of Jesus' time; and that's in every Bible that they spoke Aramaic. They didn't speak Hebrew. 
Jackie: So who taught them? Alan: The Hebrew was taught to them and created later, long 
after the dispersion. Maimonides, who also was in touch with the Khazars, was one of the most 
educated men of his period in the 8 th Century A.D., he was the one who put the Hebrew 
language together. It's a hybrid taken out of about four existing languages. The first written 
laws of Moses that they had right up into the days of Jesus was in Greek, if you read your Bible 


dictionaries and so on you'll find that it was in Greek; that was the language of the elite of that 
day. The only elite who write in all languages, especially Greek, didn't live in Greece at that time, 
they lived in the temples of Egypt. Egypt seemed to be a center for creating religion; they've 
found many of the stories in Egypt, which were later put into the Old Testament. They've also 
found many of the same stories from Canaanites, a pre-existing people, and they found them on 
the island of Cyprus. Jackie: You have mentioned once that hundreds of books have been left out 
of their Bible? How do you know this? Alan: Yes. This is the most important part. There is a 
book, 'The Moses Mystery' by Gary Greenberg and that's published in 1996, by Carol Publishing 
Group. The ISBN number is 1-55972-371-8. Jackie: So this book was written in 1996, but how do 
you know it's true? Alan: Because all the older books that I've actually read. Gary Greenberg is 
also the president of the Archaeological Society of Biblical Studies in New York City. What I 
found out when I read a book that was actually much older, which was 'Ages in Chaos' by 
Immanuel Velikovsky, was that much of the same material but in more detail is in Velikovsky's 
book and that was written in 1952. Jackie: We talked a couple of weeks ago and you had gotten 
your hands on a very old book and you quoted Ben Franklin, who said, "Those of us who created 
Protestantism will destroy Catholicism and then we will destroy Protestantism and Christianity 
will be dead" (pg. 57 - "Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

Notice how Jackie asked Alan how he knows that "hundreds of books were left out of the 
Bible"?- and Alan answers by naming two books, 'the Moses Mystery' by Gary Greenberg (all 
about how the Egyptian religion and its pharaonic histories influenced the Pentateuch as Moses 
was nothing but the leader of an expelled Egyptian priesthood that worshipped the mono- 
theistic sun-God Aton; and how David, Solomon, and the 12 tribes never existed)- and 'Ages in 
Chaos' by Velikovsky (which argues differently that Moses led the ancient Israelites out of Egypt 
on the heels of some kind of massive planetary catastrophe that engulfed the Earth around the 
15 th Century B.C (nothing as major as the Flood/Earth Crustal Displacement that happened 
anywhere from 7000-12,000 years ago though), and he finds an ancient Egyptian document, 
the Ipuwer Papyrus, echoing the Old TVs Exodus account. In 'Ages in Chaos', Velikovsky writes 
that David and Solomon's kingdom existed, and most importantly, that the ancient Israelite 
tribes warred with the Hyksos, who were the Amalekites (a super-power in the region). Both 
books mentioned by Alan say nothing about "hundreds of books being left out of the Bible"; 
Greenberg's thesis is that the Bible has its roots in the Egyptian religion of sun-worship, 
whereas Velikovsky claims no such thing. Velikovsky believes in an established 10 th Century 
Israelite Kingdom (which must have had a form of writing, as any civilization requires writing for 
administrative purposes- thus making it seem likely that the Old T. books are genuine (meaning 
that they were originally written down in Hebrew & not in Greek)), and Gary Greenberg, on the 
opposite hand, maintains that there's no proof for any David or Solomon/10 th Century Hebrew 
kingdom in the region. So not only does Alan evade Jackie's question, but he throws out two 
books that do not even support his contention, not to mention, each other. And why not state 


the real reason why the elite in Egypt in the 3 rd Century B.C. were speaking Greek? Namely b/c 
Pharaoh Ptolemy's Greek descendants were ruling there (Ptolemy I was one of Alexander the 
Great's generals, and he took over Egypt upon his untimely death). 

click to LOOK 1MS1PEI 

l"<j I 



The Egyptian Origins 
of the Jewish People 

Gary GreenJt*eir$j 

Link: 'Ages in Chaos: the Exodus: the True Story of Moses and the Pharaoh According to 
Velikovsky by Kemal Menemencioglu - 2007 

( ). 

Other Velikovsky books: 'Ages in Chaos'. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1952; 'Earth in 
Upheaval". Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1955; 'Oedipus and Akhnaton: Myth and History". 
Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1960; 'Peoples of the Sea". N.p., 1977. 

A review of Gary Greenberg's book the 'Moses Mystery' (1997) from 'KMT: A Modern Journal 
of Ancient Egypt, 8:3, Fall 1997 by Dr. O. Zuhdi' 

( ): 

"Gary Greenberg's treatise, another contribution to the Egyptian/Israelite/Exodus controversy, 
strikes out along a totally fresh and unique course. The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11, he 
asserts, derive from the pharaonic kings lists of ancient Egypt. In fact, for Greenberg, virtually 
the entire book of Genesis- not to mention other parts of the Pentateuch- has its source in 
Egyptian antecedents. Therefore, deduces the author, the twelve tribes of Israel never existed 
and the ancient Israelites were originally followers of the Aton-worshipping Akhenaten. Moses 
fled Egypt after Akhenaten's death, returned to Egypt where he and the deceased pharaoh's 
partisans made a common cause against Ramses 1, then led the remnants of the hated Atenists 
out of Egypt (the Exodus). These Egyptian expatriates, Greenberg holds, reinterpreted Egyptian 
history and myth into what became the genealogies and stories of Genesis and Exodus, the 
legends of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses". - "In terms of scholarship, however, many flaws 
and short-comings confront the knowledgeable reader. Greenberg's assertion that there is no 
extra-biblical evidence (for) David, Solomon, or the vast and glorious empire over which they 
ruled (13) contradicts recent discoveries at Tell Dan and Moab, which mention King David by 


name. The Bubastite Portal, well-know for so long, documents the existence of an Israelite 
state powerful enough to cause a major pharaoh to glory in his defeat of it. Other "bloopers" 
include: (1) the assertion that Moses killed an Egyptian soldier (141), (2) Amenhotep was a 
throne name (149) and (3) that the Amarna Letters show the disintegration of Egyptian 
authority in Palestine (160). This list is by no means exhaustive". "The author devotes much 
space to linking incidents in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Esau and Jacob with Egyptian models. 
He foresees that critics might nit-pick at some specifics, but is seemingly unaware of Near 
Eastern clues in the patriarchal narratives which place the origin of these tales well into the 
Second Millennium B.C. These include Abraham and Isaac describing their wives as sisters 
(sister was the highest level of wife in Mesopotamian culture), Sarah's letting her maidservant 
bear a child in her stead (a custom well attested at Nuzi) and Esau's selling of his birthright (also 
attested at Nuzi). Such specifics and others place the origin of the Pentateuch circa 1500 B.C, 
for these customs were unknown or illegal in the Israel of monarchical or exilic times (ca. 950- 
500 BC). They also were unknown to the Egyptians, so could not have originated from that 
quarter. Greenberg's contention that Esau is Set and Jacob Horus, that the story of these 
patriarchs derives from the Contending of Horus and Set (238), therefore, is untenable prima 
facie, for the patriarchal narrative predates the Egyptian myth, which was first attested in 1145- 
1141 B.C, during the reign of Rameses V. As for the author's assertions that Abram and Sarai are 
thinly disguised from Re and Hathor, Abraham and Sarah from Geb and Nut (250-253), these 
and other fanciful equations require more space than is available here to evaluate and refute". 

Another Review: 'The Moses Mystery Reviewed' - Outrigger Publishers, Hamilton, New 
Zealand, review by Norman Simms 

(^eql2866/dna/members/akh/simms/NSMOMY.HTM ). 

5) Alan on Hebrew (after being specifically questioned by a caller); again, he plugs Will 

"Demetrius: Did you say thot the Hebrew longuoge come obout during the 6 th century A.D or 
wos it B.C? Alan: We're into the A.D. Moimonides hos been given credit for finolizing the 
longuoge. Demetrius: A.D. Well, I'm looking in my Bible dictionory ond according to this, the 
Hebrew language was all the way back in the original Genesis time period and that the Aramaic 
language that the Jews were using in the 6 th Century B.C when they.... I forgot the particular 
empire, I haven't got the book right with me now. I try to learn all I can because we are dealing 
with, just like he you, "Rulers of the darkness of this world", and they're trying to keep us from 
finding out the deeper secrets, all those things they try to keep hidden from us, so they can 
retain power and control. Alan: Yes, read 'The Age of Faith' by Will Durant, and the section on 
Maimonides, and read his references (and there's a pile of them there), and they all say the 
same thing, that Maimonides was given the credit (and at the same time actually that they met 
the Khazars in the 8 th Century), for finalizing and completing the Hebrew language; he was the 


one who put in the J's and put in the vowels where none were there before" fpg. 65 'Waiting for 
the Miracle' - 1998). 

6) Alan on ancient Israel being a lie as there's no historical evidence, in Egyptian history 
especially, to support the notion; & how the 'Jews' were just a people coming out of Babylon: 

"Jackie: Oh, I was going to ask you that when you mentioned that they were taken out of Israel 
and into Babylon. Israel didn't exist at that time, did it? Alan: There's no mention in the Persian, 
Egyptian or anybody else's histories of Israel. On the Greek's maps they had an entire area that 
was called Edomiafor the Edomians. All we can really say is that the whole idea of an Israel 
began much later with a bunch of people coming out of Babylon" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty 
Show' with Jackie Patru Dec 8 th 2004): 
( Watt on Sweet Liberty Dec082004.html ) 

7) Alan on how the 'Habiru' are in reality the 'Hyksos': 

"Jackie: And the word 'Hebrew' is the word 'Habiru'? Alan: Habiru is the term came up by the 
Egyptians of an invading people who came in from the highland areas to the northeast and 
invaded and took over Egypt for a period. They were vicious mercenaries basically. Jackie: The 
Habiru? And that was the Hebrews, right? Alan: That's what historians today think they must 
be, and they do know that some of them had Semitic names, not all of them, though, but the 
Habiru was a conglomeration of different peoples. It wasn't just one race of people, and they 
were all nomadic initially, until they settled within Egypt, and they were the most tyrannical 
rulers Egypt ever had, and there was a General eventually who started an uprising to kick them 
out. Jackie: The Hyksos are mentioned that way. Is that the one and the same people? Alan: It's 
the same thing. 'Hyksos' refers to another term they went by, and that was 'shepherd kings'. 
Jackie: Okay. This is still the same Habiru? Alan: Yes. Jackie: So they weren't taken into Egypt 
and enslaved? they actually went in to it and enslaved Egyptians? Alan: There were two forces 
that came into Egypt at the same time. One from the Mediterranean Sea, and they were called 
the Boat People, and another bunch came by land driving their animals before them and with 
them. 'Hyksos', they often say shepherd kings, but 'Hyksos' really refers to cattle, that they drove 
cattle ahead of them, and the Habiru were the mercenaries who backed them up, basically, 
armed forces. Jackie: So the more things change, the more they stay the same because they 
were the mercenaries. Alan: Yes, and so they took over Egypt. They slaughtered thousands of 
the Egyptians, and then the Habiru nobility made themselves pharaohsfor a couple of hundred 
years, until they were eventually kicked out again" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie 
Patru Dec. 8 th 2004). 


(1945 - pg. 2): : 

"13. Tom-Taoui-Toth was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. 14. The Exodus took place at the close of 
the Middle Kingdom: the natural catastrophe caused the end of this period in the history of 
Egypt. This was in the middle of the second millennium before the present era. 15. The 
Israelites left Egypt a few days before the invasion of the Hyksos (Amu). 16. The Israelites met 
the Hyksos (Amu) on their way from Egypt. The Hyksos were the Amalekites. 17. The Arabic 
authors of the Middle Ages related traditions which reflect actual historical events, about the 
Amalekites who left Mekka amidst catastrophes and plagues, the invasion of Palestine and 
Egypt by the Amalekites, and the Amalekite pharaohs. 18. The catastrophes and plagues of 
these traditions are part of the cataclysm which is described in the Scriptures, the Papyrus 
Ipuwer, and the naos of el-Arish. The flood, which drowned many Amalekites who escaped 
from Arabia, was simultaneous with the upheaval of the sea on the day of the Passage. 19. 
Because of the occupation of southern Palestine (Negeb) by the Hyksos, the Israelites escaping 
from Egypt were forced to roam in the desert. The Desert of the Wanderings stretched deep 
into the Arab Peninsula. 20. The Hyksos stronghold Auaris was situated at the el-Arish of today. 
(Its other names are Tharu and Rhinocorura). 21. Its builder Latis, mentioned in the Arabic 
sources, is identical with the Hyksos King Salitis of Josephus-Manetho. 22. The Hyksos King 
whose name is read Apop (I) is the Agog (I) of the Scriptures. Similarly Apop II is the biblical 
Agog II. 23. Amalekite fortresses were built in Palestine. One of them was at Pirathon in 
Ephraim. 24. The Amalekites employed the same tactics in their devastating raids on Palestine 
and Egypt, choosing the time before the harvest. 25. The process of the conquest of Palestine 
by the Israelites was slowed down and reversed when the Canaanites allied themselves with 
the Hyksos-Amalekites. The wars of the Judges were intended to free the people from the yoke 
of the Hyksos. 26. The cataclysm which caused a migration of peoples brought the Philistines 
from Cyprus to the shores of Palestine. They intermarried with the Amalekites and produced a 
hybrid nation. 27. The Manethonian tradition about the later Hyksos Dynasty of a "Hellenic" 
origin reflects the period when the Philistine element became rather dominant in the Amalekite 
Empire. 28. The "Amalekite city" which was captured by Saul was Auaris. 29. As the result of his 
victory at Auaris, Saul freed Egypt and the entire Near East. 30. In the siege of Auaris, Saul was 
assisted by Kamose and Ahmose, the vassal princes of Thebes. 31. Manetho's story about the 


Hyksos leaving Auaris by agreement reflects the scriptural incident concerning the Kenites 
leaving the besieged Amalekite fortress. 32. The invasion of southern Palestine by the escaping 
remnants of the Hyksos is reflected in I Samuel 30; and their further destruction at Sheruhen, in 
the Talmudic story of Joab's war against the capital of the Amalekites. 33. This last bastion of 
the Amalekites was probably on one of the rocks of Petra. 34. Manetho confused Sheruhen 
with Jerusalem, and the Israelites, the redeemers of Egypt, with the Hyksos. 35. This confusion 
spread in the Ptolemaic time and became the cause of the rise of anti-Semitism which, fed from 
different channels, survived until today. 36. The period of the Wanderings in the Desert, of 
Joshua, and of the Judges, corresponds to the time of Hyksos domination in Egypt and the Near 
East. The period of the Hyksos lasted for more than four hundred years. The archaeological 
findings of the Hyksos period in Palestine appertain to the time of the Conquest and the 

In 'Civilization Before Greece and Rome' pg. 189, Dr. H W F Saggs indicates that it was at their 
capital of Avaris that the Hyksos rulers were finally defeated and expelled from Egyptian 
territory, and he says that they "were an ethnically mixed group with a Hurrian element" (H W F 
Saggs, 'Civilization Before Greece and Rome' (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 
1989, pg. 214)- and let's not forget that in Chapter 2 of Velikovsky's 'Ages in Chaos', he proves 
through historical/archaeological records that the Hyksos were not the Israelites or the Habiru. 

From 'Debunking the Hyksos Theory" by Masimba Musodza: 

"If these Egyptian sources support the Exodus story that the Israelites left amidst chaos and 
upheaval, can we find the Hyksos in the Bible? We can. As the Israelites entered Palestine, they 
did in fact encounter a people they called the Amalekites. Nowadays, we tend to think of the 
Biblical Amalekites as a band of marauding tribesmen, but the Israelites were certainly afraid of 
them enough to prefer wandering for 40 years in the Wilderness before they could claim 
Palestine. In later books, such as I Samuel 15:5, we find references to a "city of the Amalekites". 
Now, contrary to popular perception, the Amalekites were a huge nation, large enough to 
invade Egypt, which was a super power of its day. According to the Bible, the Amalekites had a 
King named Agog. Later, during the time of Saul, their king is also called Agog. The Egyptian 
records speak of an Apop I and II, the latter being the last of the Hyksos Pharaohs. The 
possibility of a spelling error on the part of the Hebrews is likely; the characters for g and p in 
older texts are similar. The Israelites were aware of the oppression of the Egyptians under the 
Hyksos. Attention is drawn to the original Hebrew of Psalm 78:49. In the preceding verses, an 
account of the Plagues is given, then we have: "He cast upon them the fierceness of his anger, 
wrath and indignation, and trouble, by sending evil angels among them". There is no mention 
of "evil angels" in the Book of Exodus. However, scholars state the words used, mishlakhat 
malakhei-roim are grammatically incorrect. If one adhered to the rules of writing Hebrew, it 
would make sense to say mishlakhat malkhei-roim. Translated in to English we get. ...Shepherd- 
Kings. Clearly, the invasion of Egypt by the Shepherd-Kings was remembered by the Israelites as 
the 11th Plague, as it were. In David's war with the Amalekites (who had fled the rise of Amhosi 


I and entered Palestine), there is a reference to an Egyptian who was a "servant to an 
Amalekite" (I Samuel 30:11-13). It would appear that it was the Israelites at the time of Saul and 
David who finished off the Hyksos in an alliance. In I Kings 11:19, one of David's men is given 
Pharaoh's sister-in-law's hand in marriage. We know that this Pharaoh was the same Ahmosi 
because in the Egyptian records, one of his wives was called Tanethap, very similar to the name 
given in the verse I have cited, Tahpenes. So, from a comparison of the recorded histories of the 
two nations, Egypt and Israel, we find tallying accounts of: 1) The collapse of Egypt, first 
through a series of natural disasters (attributed to God in the Israelite version) 2) This led to 
environmental degradation, and consequent economic ruin and a collapse of virtually all 
political and social institutions. Slaves escape. 3) The Pharaoh pursues some slaves, and 
drowns. His son tries to find out what has happened, but there is a more urgent matter, even 
more urgent than keeping the country together. 4) Semitic invaders sweep in to Egypt, and 
oppress this great nation for centuries. They call themselves Amu (compare Hebrew A'm, 
people) but the Egyptians call them Heka Khawaset (Foreign Kings). They are better known by 
the Greek form, Hyksos. 5) The Israelites meet them in Palestine, and call them the Amalekites. 
6) The Egyptians, under Khamose/Ahmosi, finally overthrow the Hyksos with the help of, 
among others, the Israelites". 

8) Alan on Judaism and the Israelites in his 'Cutting Through' 1: 

"Judaism did not appear until a Pe rsion invasion of Babylon released slaves into Judea" (pg. 62 - 
'Cutting Through Volume 1 - 'The Androgynous (Hermaphroditic) Agenda' - 1999'). 

9) Alan on how Immanuel Velikovsky is a front-man (2005): 

After using him initially to prove that Hebrew came from Canaanite- which it probably did, 
Alan's other comments concerning the ancient Israelites/Judaism/the Bible have insinuated 
that Velikovsky's work somehow backs it all up, when in fact, Velikovsky's corpus of 
historical/archaeological work is fundamentally opposed to some of Alan's ideas. No wonder 
Alan turns on him at a later date. Velikovsky's work corroborates the Bible's Exodus account by 
finding an Egyptian document from the same period mentioning similar events (the Ipuwer 
Papyrus), and if Velikovsky is correct, it shatters the 19 th Century prejudice that there are no 
traces of events related in the Pentateuch that are recorded in Egyptian history. Velikovsky 
writes of an ancient Israelite people, of Saul, David, and Solomon, and he thoroughly 
documents their encounters with the Amalekites (who were the Hyksos). Of course, Alan wants 
us to believe that the 'Habiru' were in fact the 'Hyksos', but they had to have been different 
groups, because we know from records (via Velikovsky), that before the catastrophe, which 
occurred in the mid-Second Millennium B.C, the Hyksos were in Arabia. Arab historians, such as 
Mesudi, recounted how the Amalekites fled Southern Arabia to conquer Egypt and Syria after 
violent natural catastrophes hit their homeland, telling of raging floods that carried away whole 
tribes, and a pestilence of ants. 

"Jackie: That's why I wanted to bring this up, before I forget it. Now can we go to Sumer? And 
you know the gentlemen who wrote me the letter? I don't know, he probably wouldn't want to 


have a conversation with you because he just wants to say how crazy I am and how crazy you 
are. I'd like to say one more thing though. If he's listening tonight, if you read about the account 
that was written by Immanuel Velikovsky on the conflagration that occurred about the time the 
so-called exodus out of Egypt was supposed to have occurred you will see that. His book is titled, 
"Worlds in Collision" and the other one is called "Earth in Upheaval ", it's a sequel, and those 
books unless he made up all of that, all of the ancient manuscripts that he quoted from, and I 
don't believe he did, and he's a Jew and he even quoted the Rabbis saying that at that time 
when the sun - it was dark for three days. According to his report on the other side of the earth, 
the sun stood still in the sky for three days but the Rabbis said that 49 out of 50 of the quote 
"chosen people" left Egypt. They were leaving because they were trying to find some sun. They 
were trying to find some food, and it wasn't just they who left, and so therefore that to me, 
when you look at that and you see that they wrote that story of Exodus, of course always 
around the chosen, well then it's our choice if we're going to --Alan: It's a choice. See, Velikovsky 
too, we've got to remember, was a Rabbinical Rabbi and the son of a Rabbinical Rabbi. 
Jackie: Well, he must have ticked them off no end. Alan: No. He was sent out from Communist 
Russia to promulgate this really. Jackie: But why? Alan: Because at that time, they could not 
find any evidence of an ancient Israel people, so his job was to try and validate the fact that 
there had been an ancient Israel people. Jackie: I see. So he wrote it into the histories. Alan: 
When you look at all of it - when they discovered the Tel el Amarna city, which was the record- 
keeping capital basically of Egypt when Akhenaton was in power, they found literally millions of 
correspondences all in baked tablets from all their satrapies or little princedoms across the 
entire Middle East back and forth from the leaders or the princes or whoever was put in charge 
of these conquered peoples. Yet nobody's history, whether it's ancient Persian or Egypt or 
whatever, nowhere did they mention a people called Israeli or a land called Israel" (Alan on 
Jackie's 'Sweet Liberty' show June, 27 th 2005): Watt on Sweet Liberty Jun27200 
5.html ). 

The Amarna Tablets/Letters (1399-1300 B.C) were written in Akkadian cuneiform, which came 
from Sumerian, and most of the Near-East ancient world used it as the international language 
of communication (much like English today). They illuminate the social, political and religious 
relationships between the land of Canaan and Egypt during the reigns of Amenhotep III and 
Akhenaton in the 14 th Century B.C. Velikovsky devoted Chapters 6-8 of 'Ages in Chaos' to the 
significance of the Amarna Letters, and he claimed that they showed a relation to the Israelites. 


Letter by Aziru, leader of Amurru, (stating his case to pharaoh ), one of the Amarna letters in cuneiform 
writing on a clay tablet. 

From Wiki: 'The letters were found in Upper Egypt at Amarna, the modern name for the 
Egyptian capital of Akhetaten, founded by pharaoh Akhenaten (1350s - 1330s BC) during the 
Eighteenth dynasty of Egypt. The Amarna letters are unusual in Egyptological research, being 
mostly written in Akkadian cuneiform, the writing system of ancient Mesopotamia rather than 
ancient Egypt. The known tablets currently total 382 in number, 24 further tablets having been 
recovered since the Norwegian Assyriologist J0rgen Alexander Knudtzon's landmark edition of 
the Amarna correspondence, Die El-Amorno-Tofeln in two volumes (1907 and 1915).^ The 
correspondence spans a period of at most thirty years" 
( http://en.wikipedia.orR/wiki/Amarna letters . 

From 'Truth Magazine' Vol. XLV: 1 p22 January 4, 2001: 'the Tell El-Amarna Letters' by Tom 

Hamilton : 
725d4c795d501d874c3aec2e945 ): 

"The Amarna tablets have served to make the Amarna age one of the best known and most 
extensively documented periods of ancient history. The tablets reveal the period to be an 
unprecedented time of international diplomacy and of cultural exchange. Historians are able to 
glean many insights into the structure of the entire Fertile Crescent, from Mesopotamia to 

Amenhotep IV, the Egyptian Pharaoh who married his own sister Nefertiti, built a new capital 
city called 'Akhetaton', which housed the letters, and he imposed upon the Egyptians a new 
mono-theistic sun-worship religion (forcing everyone to worship the one God Aton). Eventually, 
his priesthood was brought down in an internal revolt, and the old worship of Amon started up 
again. The Amarna Letters reflect a growing unrest in the region, when rebellions were starting 
up all over the place, and within them, we can see the various princes and satrapies of Egypt 
(especially in Canaan, later to become Israel) pleading to the Pharaoh for troops and assistance. 
At around this time, either a 100 years or so before or after the tablets' composition, we have 
the Exodus occurring. Gary Greenberg (who's a trial lawyer) has claimed that Moses was really 
just an Egyptian prince who led the remnants of the expelled Aton priesthood out of Egypt 
(hence the Exodus was nothing more than the Atonists being chased out of town by the pissed 
off Amon-worshippers), and if that's true, then Judaism no doubt has its roots within Egyptian 
sun-worship. (But the Old T. is clearly opposed to sun & moon worship (Ezekiel 8:14), and 
they're portrayed within the Bible as Yahweh's ultimate irritant). The Old T. also openly 
connects the practice of sun & moon worship to the trinity of the Babylonian Mystery Religion, 
so if Egypt copied Babylon's religion, and if the Old T. is antithetical to it (Babylon's trinity), then 
how can it be claimed that the Old T. copied Egypt? There are many lines of evidence that 


prove that everything started in Sumer after the world-wide flood/Earth Crustal Displacement 
(see Charles Hapgood's work (Einstein believed his theory), and then afterwards spread 
westward to Egypt. Sumer gave birth to civilization, government, writing, astronomy (see Noah 
Cramer's classic ' Life Begins at Sumer ' (1956)), and it no doubt created the Mystery Religion 
(and then exported it around the world). To see an amazing case made for that assertion, that 
Nimrod and his wife started a religious system in Sumer that is still with us today (under many 
guises), read Alexander Hislop's book 'The Two Babylons' (1853) ( the .pdf is available here ). It's 
noteworthy that Genesis 10 & 11 tell how a huge group of humans traveling from the east 
settled on the plains of Sumer ('Shinar') and then began to construct many huge cities there 
(civilization), and the best evidence that everything flowed from Sumer/Babylon is the fact that 
Sumerian cuneiform Akkadian script was the international language of communication in the 
ancient world, and not Egyptian. Sumer was the Hub, and as for it being the nucleus of the 
Mystery Religion, we even have Amarna Tablets that record other kings in the region giving or 
loaning the Pharaoh statues of the Sumerian/Babylonian Goddess Ishtar/Semiramis (wife to 
Nimrod, mother to Tammuz, the woman behind all of the sundry forms of Goddess worship, be 
it Isis, Aphrodite, Artemis, Athena, Diana, Ashtaroth, Astarte etc). The Pharaoh would not have 
imported in a statue of Ishtar unless she was truly compatible with the Egyptian Mystery 
Religion's 'Uesaf (Isis)- unless they were in fact from the same religion. To see more about the 
Amarna Tablets, and especially a letter sent by Tushratta to Amenhotep III informing him that 
he will loan him a statue of Ishtar/Semiramis (thus proving that they were always into the 
Mystery Religion), go here: ) 

So do the Amarna tablets relate to the Old T? 

Again, from 'Truth Magazine' Vol. XLV: 1 p22 January 4, 2001: 'the Tell El-Amarna Letters' by 
Tom Hamilton: 

"The Amarna tablets were the first documents to call scholars' attention to a group of people 
called the Habiru (or 'Apiru), whose name bears a striking similarity to the name "Hebrew." This 
has led to much study and discussion of the possible connections between these two groups, or 
of the identification of the Habiru in the Amarna tablets as the Hebrews. In the Amarna tablets, 
the Habiru appear as nomadic marauders who are allied with one vassal prince against another. 
They are always spoken of in a derogatory manner, and it seems that the name Habiru itself 
was a pejorative term, at least as it is used in the Amarna tablets. Subsequent study has located 
references to these Habiru in Sumerian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, and Canaanite texts ranging from 
2500 to 1200 B.C. In general, these people were viewed as politically, economically, and socially 
inferior troublemakers who easily abandoned legitimate activities and became roving bands of 
outlaws, raiding and pillaging for a living. The whole Habiru-Hebrew problem is too complex to 
go into here, but it must be acknowledged that there might be a connection between the two, 


although it is unlikely that the two terms should be equated. It is more likely that some 
Hebrews would have been considered as Habiru, but not all Habiru would have been Hebrews. 
As the question relates to the Amarna tablets specifically, the question is whether the 
references to the Habiru in these tablets refer to the Hebrews. There are three basic 
approaches to this question: (1) The Habiru have no connection with the Hebrews because the 
Amarna tablets do not have any connection with biblical history. With the Hebrews under Jacob 
leaving Palestine for Egypt before the events of the Amarna tablets and the exodus occurring 
after the events of the Amarna tablets, these tablets describe a situation otherwise unknown in 
Palestine during the 430 years Israel was in Egypt. (2) The Habiru are the Hebrews, and the 
Amarna tablets are an archaeological confirmation of the occupation of Canaan under Joshua, 
describing the Canaanites' viewpoint as Joshua and the Israelites conquer Canaan. (3) The 
Habiru may or may not refer to the Hebrews, because the Amarna tablets describe the situation 
in Palestine during the early period of the Judges. The Habiru may be Israelites fighting against 
their Canaanite oppressors, or they may be bands of outlaws referred to in Judges (9:3; 11:3). 
Obviously, the whole question comes down to how one dates the exodus of the Israelites from 
Egypt. If one adopts a fifteenth century date for the exodus, the Amarna tablets obviously 
describe conditions in Palestine after the exodus. If one adopts a thirteenth century date for 
the exodus, the Amarna tablets would describe the situation in Palestine while the Israelites 
were still in Egyptian bondage. It is fair to say that those who adopt a thirteenth century date 
for the exodus (i.e., ca. 1290 B.C.) do so because of the weight they attribute to the 
archaeological evidence. For example, the nations of Moab and Edom, which Israel needed to 
circumvent (Num. 20-21), are asserted not to have existed before the thirteenth century. 
Additional archaeological excavations are thought to show appropriate destruction levels for 
the later date, or they fail to demonstrate evidence of either destruction or population for the 
earlier date. The only real biblical evidence adduced is the reference to the city Raamses in 
Exodus 1:11, suggesting a connection with Ramses II of the thirteenth century. It should be 
obvious that the archaeological evidence is, at best, ambiguous and results in arguing from 
silence. More extensive excavations, additional discoveries, and more exact identifications of 
ancient sites might very well result in a modification of current views. In addition, it seems 
more difficult to fit the biblical evidence into a thirteenth century date for the exodus. It is hard 
to reconcile Moses' long sojourn in the wilderness (Exod. 2:15-23) with the short reign of Seti I, 
if he is proposed as the pharaoh of the oppression. Likewise, it would appear that the pharaoh 
of the exodus drowned with his army (Exod. 14-15), while the proposed pharaoh of the exodus, 
Ramses II, lived for a very long time after the supposed date for the exodus. Finally, the 
testimony of 1 Kings 6:1 would place the exodus around 1440 B.C., and there doesn't appear to 
be any compelling reason to take the numbers given in a figurative or accommodating way. The 
fifteenth century date for the exodus from Egypt and conquest of Palestine also allows time for 
the 300 years mentioned in Judges 11:26. Even if we adopt a fifteenth century date for the 


exodus, it is difficult to correlate exactly the Amarna tablets with biblical history. We know that 
the Amarna tablets date are from the reigns of Amenhotep III and IV, but we cannot be certain 
about the precise dates of their reigns and, therefore, their relation to Joshua or the Judges. 
However, while the Amarna tablets often refer to an impending military threat and urgently 
appeal to Egypt to send help to her loyal subjects, the requests for reinforcements are small. 
Often it is thought that fifty men, or in one case as few as ten, were sufficient to reinforce the 
garrisons. This does not appear to describe sufficiently the threat Israel posed for the 
inhabitants of Palestine during the conquest under Joshua. However, during the early period of 
the judges, when Israel was divided, beset by foreign oppressors, and plagued by roving bands 
of outlaws, we see the same type of conditions described in the Amarna tablets. Perhaps the 
Amarna tablets give us insight into the enemy's point of view during this period of biblical 

Let's refresh ourselves with what Alan said before: "Alan: When you look at all of it - when 
they discovered the Tel el Amarna city, which was the record-keeping capital basically of Egypt 
when Akhenaton was in power, they found literally millions of correspondences all in baked 
tablets from all their satrapies or little princedoms across the entire Middle East back and forth 
from the leaders or the princes or whoever was put in charge of these conquered peoples. Yet 
nobody's history, whether it's ancient Persian or Egypt or whatever, nowhere did they mention a 
people called Israeli or a land called Israel" (Alan on Jackie's 'Sweet Liberty' show June, 27 th 
2005). He says that the Amarna Tablets (14 th Century B.C.) make no mention whatsoever of any 
land called 'Israel', but we find them explicitly mentioning the 'Habiru'. Now, it's debatable if 
they're in fact the 'Hebrews', but for Alan to demand that the letters specifically mention the 
land of 'Israel' is naive. It's not clear why Egyptian diplomatic records would not mention that 
word, they're still late 14 th Century, and it's not until the early 13 th Century, with the Merneptah 
Stele, that we get an explicit Egpytian mention of an 'Israel' (but on that Stele they're signified 
as a 'people', and not a 'nation'). The Amarna Tablets pertaining to the Canaan-reigion tell that 
the Habiru are trouble makers, responsible for war and lawlessness, but keeping in mind that 
these tablets are written from an Egyptian viewpoint, and that Canaan is in fact the region that 
was to later become the Kingdom of Israel, it's amazing how Alan asserts that there's no 
mention of the ancient Hebrews/Israelites whatsoever within them. Some scholars have 
suggested that 'Habiru' was originally a broad umbrella term used to denote anyone that 
rebelled against the Egyptian Empire (much how 'terrorist' is used today)- so some Habiru 
might have been Hebrews; others have pointed out that the term was being used by nations 
going back into the 2 nd Millennium, so therefore, couldn't have applied to the Hebrews (as 
Abraham, according to Scriptures, didn't leave Mesopotamia until around 2090 B.C). We know 
for a fact that the letters fall within the 14 th Century B.C. range, so depending on which Exodus 
view one takes, as occuring either in the 15 th or 13 th Centuries B.C, the letters take on a 
different meaning. If the Hebrews were still in captivity in Egypt, then the 'Habiru' of Canaan 


could not have been them, but if they were already back in Canaan at that time (because the 
Exodus took place earlier in the 15 th Century B.C.), then the 'Habiru' mentioned would most 
likely be the Hebrews of the Old T. (and that time frame would fit with the Bible's 300-year 
Joshua and Judges period, when the Israelites began to kick ass in the region). Those letters 
testify to some kind of rebellion taking place within the land of Canaan, and Canaan was always 
something promised to the Hebrews, but to put it all into view, if the Merneptah Stele is 
correct, then the 15 th Century Exodus account might be more plausible, as it reveals that when 
the Israelites were defeated by Pharaoh Merneptah in Canaan around 1208 B.C, they were 
already a well-established social/agrarian unit, and a 13 th Century Exodus = not enough time. 

Here's the 'Table of Contents' from Velikovsky's book 'Ages in Chaos': 

Chapter VI: THE EI-AMARNA LETTERS (225) The el-Amarna letters and when they were written (223) 
Jerusalem, Samaria, and Jezreel (229) The five kings (233) The letters of Jehoshaphat's captains (239) 
Adaia, the deputy (242) City-princes (243) Amon, the governor of Samaria (244) The first siege of 
Samaria by the king of Damascus (246) The capture and release of the king of Damascus by the king of 
Samaria (250) Ships, chieftains, or legions (252) The king of Samaria seeks an ally against the king of 
Damascus (254) Ahab or Jehoram; two versions of the Scriptures (255) 

Chapter VII: THE EL-AMARNA LETTERS: Famine (263), Mesha's rebellion (268) The "great indignation": a 
reconstruction of the obscure and missing portions of the stele Mesha (273) Arza, the courtier (276) 
Jerusalem in peril (277) The revolt of the Sodomites (281) (285) The letters of the "Great Woman of 
Shunem" (289) The king of Damascus conspires against the life of the king of Samaria (291) The king of 
Damascus is killed while lying ill (292) Hazael, "the dog," burns the strongholds of Israel (295) The last 
letters of Ahab (298) 

Chapter VIM: THE EL-AMARNA LETTERS: larimuta (303) Samaria (Sumur) under the oligarchs 
(305) The "King's City," Sumur (306). Shalmaneser II expels King Nikined (308) Shalmaneser III is opposed 
by a Syrian coalition under Biridri (Biridia), the commandant of Megiddo (310) Shalmaneser III invades 
Amuru land and is opposed by the king of Damascus (315) The Phoenicians leave for a new home (316) 
Who is the dreaded "king of "Hatti" of the el-Amarna correspondence? (320) Idioms of the el-Amarna 
letters (324) The age of ivory (327) 

10) Alan on how the Hebrew language was a much later compilation: 

"Alan: There's no doubt about it. How could you lose your language when you've been in 
captivity for less than 100 years? Jackie: What do you mean by that? Alan: Supposedly they 
went in speaking Hebraic and came out speaking Aramaic. Jackie: So what is the Hebrew 
language? Alan: The Hebrew language really is a much later compilation. In fact, it wasn't until 
Maimonides in about the 12th century or so, who was the high-rabbi as they called him of his 
day, it wasn't until he put the language together what they called properly. In other words, he 
filled in all the vowel points, which were not there. Without the vowels what they used to do 
was write the consonants and just a little pencil point where a vowel would be because there 


were so many dialects that different people would put down different vowels in the word. What 
Maimonides did was to officially put down into law basically what the vowels were so they'd all 
say the same words and pronounce them the same, but without those particular vowels it was 
just generally Aramaic. It wasn't different from anything else" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty 
Show' with Jackie Patru Jul. 6 th 2005). 

11) Alan on how the 12 tribes of Israel were all astrologically (not historically) derived: 

"Jackie: So these people who became "Jews" because of this religion that this priesthood made 
up for them, they were of a mixed race also. What about the "12 Tribes"? Was it 10 or 12 
tribes? Alan: There was never any 12 Tribes of Israel. Jackie: Were there ever 10? Alan: No. 
Jackie: What were there? Alan: There was none. It's a made-up history which never existed. 
Jackie: SotheBenjamitesandthe-Alan: It's all nonsense. Jackie: All of it? Alan: It's all in that 
third book. It's all zodiacal constellations. It's not to do with real people" (Alan on the 'Sweet 
Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru Jul. 6 th 2005). 

You gotta love Alan's logic: Jackie: So what about the Founding Fathers? Alan: They all came 
from the constellations. Jackie: Really? Alan: Yep, it's all in my third book. Jackie: Wow, we're 
so lucky to have your solid researching skills. Alan: I basically just copied what Albert Pike wrote 
in his 'Morals and Dogma' though. Jackie: Well, Albert Pike certainly knows the truth, he's such 
an enthusiastic Luciferian. Alan: I'd like to include more sources and references, but I'm too 
busy these days preparing my meals and chopping wood. 

12) Alan on how there's no evidence for the ancient Israelites & Solomon never existed (his 
name coming via the Mystery Religion): 

u Alan: You cannot even verify a place called Israel, because outside of the Bible, it was written 
much, much later and the New Testament too. There's no history in the Egyptian records or the 
Persian records or any other records of a place called Israel. Alex: What about the Israeli 
kingdom when Solomon arose, and King David? Alan: Solomon means SOL-OM-ON. It means the 
sun in three languages. That's what Solomon is. It's three times great. He is Hermes 
Trismagistus, three times great, SOL-OM-ON. That's all it means. Alex: Did he exist? Alan: No. 
Alex: He didn't exist? Alex: No? Alan: SOL is the sun. OM is the sun and ON is the sun. Three 
times great. It's a figurative esoteric Masonic, ancient Masonic term for the perfected man that 
anyone could become. Even the name David comes from DEVI, which means God. Alex: Right. So 
basically Joseph was [inaudible] and if you talk in Jewish in antiquities, he was basically retelling 
the bible? Alan: It's all rehashing the old esoteric stuff, one for the public to believe in, and one 
for those who understand and who know. If you look at even the temple itself, each part of the 
temple that was built, which was much smaller than Solomon's house by the way, is simply the 
perfect square or ashlar again; and the brass and so on all mean higher things in the esoteric 


The Merneptah Stele and Other Evidence: 

The Merneptah Stele discovered in 1896 by Flinders Petrie (dated 1209-1208 B.C) specifically 
references the ancient Israelites: upon it, the Pharaoh Merneptah brags how he crushed them 
and scattered their seed; the 'Tel Dan Stele' describes the victory of the King of Damascus over 
a "King of Israel" and a "House of David" during the 9 th Century B.C; the 9th Century B.C 'Mesha 
Stele', uncovered at the ancient capital city of Moab, also states victories over a "King of Israel"; 
the 'Sennacherib Prism' (early 7 th Century B.C.) tells of the Assyrian king's attack on Jerusalem 
during the reign of Hezekiah (recounted in 2 Kings 18-19). Here are some other traditionally 
assembled pieces of archaeological/historical evidence that make some sort of reference 
towards an ancient Israelite people: there's 'Shishak's Geographical List' written in Egyptian 
10 th Century B.C., which lists all of the cities that Pharaoh Shisak captured or made his tributes 
during his campaign in Judah and Israel; 'Shalmaneser's Black Obelisk' written in Akkadian 9 th 
Century B.C. states how Israel's king Jehu presented tribute to Assyria's king Shakmaneser III 
(additional Assyrian and Babylonian texts refer to other kings of Israel and Judah); 'the Siloam 
Inscription' written in Hebrew late 8 th Century B.C. features a workman describing the 
construction of an underground conduit to attain a water-supply during Hezekiah's reign; 
'Sargon's Display Inscription' written in Akkadian 8 th Century B.C. records how Sargon II 
conquered Samaria in 722-721 B.C. and captured and exiled 27,290 Israelites; there's the 
'Lachish Letters' from the early 6 th Century B.C., which are Hebrew inscriptions on pottery 
showing the days preceding the Babylonian siege of Jerusalem (588-586 B.C.); the 
'Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle' written in Akkadian 6 th Century B.C. tells of the Babylonian siege of 
Jerusalem in 597 B.C.; the 'Murashu Tablets' written in Akkadian 5 th Century B.C. are 
commercial documents that detail the transactions a Babylonian firm had with Jews and other 
exiles, who were in bondage in Babylon at that point. 

From left to right: The Merneptah Stele; the Tel Dan Stele; and the Meshe Stele. 


From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.orR/wiki/Merneptah Stele (about the Merneptah Stele): 

"This title "Israel Stele" is somewhat misleading because the stele only makes a brief mention 
of Israel and Canaan. The next ascertained mention of "Israel" dates to the 9th century, found 
on the Mesha Stele . The line mentioning Israel is grouped together with three other defeated 
states in Canaan (Gezer, Yanoam and Ashkelon) in a single stanza, beside multiple stanzas 
regarding his defeat of the Libyans . The line referring to Merneptah's Canaanite campaign 
reads: "Canaan is captive with all woe. Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized, Yanoam made 
nonexistent; Israel is wasted, bare of seed".^ 1 The phrase "wasted, bare of seed" is formulaic, 
and often used of defeated nations. It implies that the store of grain of the nation in question 
has been destroyed, which would result in a famine the following year, incapacitating them as a 
military threat to Egypt". 

"Israel is laid waste; its seed is no more." 

ysrir^ fk.t bn pr.t =f 

Israel waste [negative] seed/grain his/its 

From Wiki: 'The stela does make clear that "Israel" at this stage, refers to a people since the 
hieroglyphic determinative for "country" is absent for Israel. While the other defeated Egyptian 
enemies listed besides Israel in this document such as Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam were given 
the determinative for a city-state- "a throw stick plus three mountains designating a foreign 
country"- the hieroglyphs that refer to Israel instead employ the determinative sign used for 
foreign peoples: a throw stick plus a man and a woman over three vertical plural lines. This sign 
is typically used by the Egyptians to signify nomadic tribes without a fixed city-state, thus 
implying that ysrir "Israel" was the demonym for a seminomadic or rural population at the time 
the stele was created".^Significance of Israel's mention: Michael G. Hasel, director of the 
Institute of Archaeology at Southern Adventist University argues that Israel was already a well 
established political force in Canaan in the late 13th century BCE: "Israel functioned as an 
agriculturally based or sedentary socioethnic entity in the late 13th century BCE, one that is 
significant enough to be included in the military campaign against political powers in Canaan. 
While the Merneptah stela does not give any indication of the actual social structure of the 


people of Israel, it does indicate that Israel was a significant socioethnic entity that needed to 
be reckoned with: 1111 

King Solomon's Wall: from 'National Geographic News, Tel Aviv Israel Feb 26 th 2010': "King 
Solomon's Wall Found-Proof of Bible Tale?: A 3000-year-old defensive wall might be 
unprecedented archaeological support for a Bible passage on King Solomon': the article said: 
"a 3000-year old defensive wall possibly built by King Solomon has been unearthed in 
Jerusalem, according to the Israeli archaeologist who led the excavation. The discovery appears 
to validate a Bible passage, she says. The tenth-century B.C wall is 230 feet (70 meters) long and 
about 6 meters (20 feet) tall. It stands along what was then the edge of Jerusalem- between the 
Temple Mount, still Jerusalem's paramount landmark, and the ancient City of David, today a 
modern-day Arab neighborhood called Silwan. The stone barrier is part of a defensive complex 
that includes a gate-house, an adjacent building, and a guard tower, which has been only 
partially excavated, according to Eliat Mazar, who led the dig for the Hebrew University of 
Jerusalem" - "The Bible's First Book of Kings- widely believed to have been written centuries 
after the time period in question- says Solomon, king of Israel, built a defensive wall in 
Jerusalem. The new discovery is the first archaeological evidence of this structure, Mazar says". 
- "Ceramics found near the wall helped narrow the date down, being of a level of sophistication 
common to the second half of the tenth century B.C.- King Solomon's time, according to Mazar. 
Three-foot-tall (one-meter-tall) earthenware storage vessels were found near the gate-house, 
one of them with a Hebrew inscription indicating the container belonged to a high-ranking 
government official" ( 
solomon-wall-jerusalem-bible/ ) 

"Miss Mazar, pictured, believes the wall was built by Solomon Photo: AFP/GETTY" 


The Oldest Piece of Hebrew Writing in the World 
= 10 th Century B.C (3000 years ago) 

"The ceramic shard contains five lines of faded 
characters written 3,000 years ago, making it the 
oldest discovered Hebrew inscription Photo: AP" 
"The Oldest Piece of Hebrew Writing in the World": from 'Live Science Jan. 16 th 2010 - 
'Bible Possibly Written Centuries Earlier, Text Suggests': "Prof Gershhon Galil of Haifa U. 
deciphered a text dating to the 10 th Century B.C (discovered in Israel's Elah Valley). Written in 
an ancient proto-Canaanite script, but using unique Hebrew verb roots, it tells readers to 
protect widows, orphans and strangers in their midst- motifs familiar to readers of the Book of 
Isaiah (but absent from documents of neighboring peoples). At the site they also found an 
ancient fortified city with two city-gates and megalithic stones. The inscription reads: "l'you 
shall not do [it], but worship the [Lord]. 2' Judge the slo[ve] and the wid[ow] /Judge the 
orph[on] 3' [and] the stronger. [Pljeadfor the infant/ plead for the po[or and] 4' the widow. 
Rehabilitate [the poor] at the hands of the king. 5' Protect the po[or and] the slave/ [suppjort 
the stranger". The content, which has some missing letters, is similar to some Biblical 
scriptures, such as Isaiah 1:17, Psalms 72:3, and Exodus 23:3, but does not appear to be copied 
from any Biblical text" ( 
100115.html ). 

To sumarize: the discovery of the pottery and the-two gated biblical city of Sha-arayim at 

Khirbet Qeiyafa, Israel (made from mega-lithic stones) prove the existence of an ancient 
Hebrew kingdom during the purported reign of King David & Solomon in the 10 th Century B.C. 

For further resources Google: ' Pottery shard lends evidence to stories of biblical King David ' by the 
Telegraph. co. uk's Carolynne Wheeler Oct. 31 st 2008; '10 th Century Hebrew Inscription on Pottery from 
Khirbet, Qeiyafa, Israel Confirms Biblical Claims' by Rich Deem Jan 12 th 2010; 'Inscription from King 
David's time deciphered '. 


Most Ancient Hebrew Biblical Inscription Deciphered - Science Codex: ancient hebrew biblical inscription deciphered 

Bible Written 4 Centuries Earlier Than Thought - The Times of India: 


The House of David Inscription - All About Archeology: 

Accounts of the Campaign of Sennacherib, 701 BCE - Fordham University: 

Tel Dan Stele - Wikipedia: Dan Stele 


Error#2 - The entire Old T. was originally written in Egypt in Greek as 
'the Septuagint' by 72 Mystery School Priests around 280 B.C = a lie. 

Alan claims that the Old T. was first originally written in Egypt in Greek around 280 B.C., thus 
producing the 'Septuagint', which would connect the Old T. to the Mystery Religion and justify 
the claim that it was all fiction and possessing an exoteric strata of meaning for the profane and 
an esoteric one for the initiate. Aside from a few chapters in Ezra and Daniel, and one verse in 
Jeremiah (that were originally written in Aramaic) - all the other books and passages within the 
Old T. were first written down in Hebrew, and ranging from around 1450-430 B.C. ('Malachi' 
being the last book, which scholars have dated to be around 440-430 B.C). Too bad for Alan 
that Robert Graves, his major source for all things Judaic in his written work, stresses quite 
clearly in his classic book 'Hebrew Myths: the Book of Genesis' (1983) on pg. 233 (from which 
Alan cites from many times in his 'Cutting Through' 1) that the Septuagint was nothing but a 
Greek TRANSLATION of the original Hebrew writings, ordered by Ptolemy II of Egypt (285-246 
B.C). It should be noted how Alan offers no sources and references to back up what he says 
concerning Judaism in his written work other than Graves' book 'Hebrew Myths', but after 
reading it, find Graves fundamentally disagreeing with him when it comes to the Hebrew 
language/Septuagint. Again, Alan's own source debunks his idea (& Will Durant will be next). 

Here's 5 Alan-quotes on the topic: 

1) Alan on the Septuagint, & again he plugs Velikovsky & G. Greenberg to back himself up: 

"Alan: The version that they were given of the Old Testament, which wasn't put together until 
280 B.C, was the Septuagint (and you'll find that in your Bible dictionary). That was the standard 
version that in Jesus' day was used in the temple, which meant that Jesus must have read Greek 
because that is what he read from. They did not have a Hebrew version of it, they had never had 
a complete Hebrew version prior to the Greek version; they only had the Book of Moses or the 
Scrolls of Moses (the Five Books)". - "Alan: There was a final compilation of the Old Testament 
and it wasn't done until after Christ, and once again, it was done in Greek and they tell us that it 
was written by the priests who lived in Egypt. The temple of Thoth had the religions of all the 
peoples that they ruled; these people were creating their histories for them. It's an amazing 
thing, but they have dug all this stuff up. They are still digging up more stuff, for example, at 
Tel-Amarna in Egypt, they have got a whole city of records which shines a lot of light on Moses 
and where the original Hebrews came from. This is in 'Ages in Chaos 1 by Immanuel Velikovsky, 
who is Jewish himself and you will also find it in a fantastic book 'The Moses Mystery' by Gary 
Greenberg who is president of the Biblical Archaeological Society in New York. It fills in the 
blanks of this people" (pg. 49 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 


Greenberg and Velikovsky certainly said nothing about the Amarna Tablets revealing that an 
Egyptian priesthood was making up all of the religions and histories for the various peoples that 
it ruled within its vast Empire. The Amarna Tablets tell us nothing about Moses, why is Alan 
acting like they do? Or should? They're simply 14 th Century B.C Egyptian government records, 
pertaining to administrative details and diplomatic issues- why would they mention Moses? 
someone whom the Egytpians would hate? But upon the tablets dealing with cities from 
Canaan, they do repeatedly speak of a group called the 'Habiru', who were portrayed always as 
marauding brigands, amassing in size and strength, and taking over more and more cities there. 

2) Alan on the how the Old T. was first written in Egypt in Greek, and how Moses never 
existed, and is another form of Hermes ("the Illumined Man"): 

"Alan: When you look at the supposed history of how the Old Testament was written, and 
you've got to remember 2,000 years ago, the Old Testament that they were given was written in 
Greek. It wasn't in Hebrew. It was written in Greek by a bunch of priests who supposedly were in 
Egypt around 200, 300 BC. This is the story, 72 priests who happened to be in Egypt wrote it in 
Greek for the Jews who spoke Aramaic. Jackie: They were in Egypt translating it into Greek for 
the Jews who spoke Aramaic? Alan: That's correct. That makes a lot of sense, right? It was a 
compilation of esoteric stories really, not the exoteric ones, of the Mystery Religion that had 
been in existence for a long, long time before that. I mean Moses is just another form of 
Hermes, basically. Hermes is the truly enlightened figure, and so the illumined one can go up the 
mountain, while the rest of the people, who are the mob, are in the dark, they must stay below. 
Going up the mountain is symbolic of the illumined one. Moses is just the Egyptian word for 
child, and it's just dropped the Ra, the child of Ra, Ra-Moses" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' 
with Jackie Patru Dec 8 th 2004). Watt on Sweet Liberty Dec082004.html 

It's called the 'Sept' (or LXX) because seventy priests/scholars had their hands in helping make 
the translation (L = 50; X X = 20). Alan loves to mystify the subject, but any quick research will 
show that it all happened via the bidding of Ptolemy the II & not some shadowy cabal attached 
to the 'Mystery Religion' (as many Greek-speaking Jews were living in Alexandria at that time). 


3) Alan on how the Old T. wasn't even written by the 1 st Century A.D: 

"Myron: Last night, I heard you mention Passover, and I was wondering if Mr. Watt could 
explain this teaching of the Passover that many ministers teach out of the Old Testament, and 
what is the symbolism or the meaning of this Passover that's really being talked about? Jackie: 
Okay, good question, Myron. Myron: Yes, thank you. Jackie: Give him just a minute to get his 
radio turned up, Alan. Okay, Passover. Alan: That was a fairly recent invention because the 
historian Josephus, who lived in the 1st century AD, claims that the Passover was a fairly new 
institution and it hadn't actually grounded itself with any historical past. Jackie: Wasn't the Old 
Testament already written then? Alan: I doubt it. Jackie: It was the first century AD? Alan: Yes, 
I don't think the Old Testament was all written at all. Jackie: Not all written but weren't those 
first five books already put into-Alan: That's the first five books of Moses. The thing is, as 
Josephus said, there was no - it was hazy as to why it came into existence. It was a festival time 
and sometime it had been equated with a festival of lights, which they usually had at those 
times, but, as far as a bloody sacrifice type thing, that wasn't part of it at that time in his day" 
(Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru April. 27 th 2005) Watt on Sweet Liberty Apr27200 

When It Comes To Ancient History, Alan is Wrong 

The ancient pottery shard found in Elah Valley, Israel, shows that the Hebrew language was 
already in existence before the 10 th Century B.C (the site's age was ascertained by 'Carbon-14 
dating' its burned-out olive pits). It proves that the Hebrews were recording their history with 
writing by at least 1000 B.C, so therefore, there had to have been scribes capable of writing 
literary texts and complex historiographies (like the books of Judges and Samuel). This evidence 
validates the notion that the Old T. was first written down in Hebrew by a nation of Israelites 

long before 280 B.C. 

4) Alan on how the first collection of biblical 
Hebrew writings were written in Greek: 

"The first compendium of Jewish writings did not 
appear until three or four hundred years BC, written 
in Greek, supposedly created by the famous 6x12=72 
Cabalistic No. of priests LIVING In EGYPT. The 
returning Jews spoke Aramaic" fpg. 62 'Cutting 
Through 1'). 

How come Alan doesn't mention 'the Aramaic Targums'? It was an Aramaic translation of the 
Hebrew Scriptures done around 400 B.C. (due to their captivity in Babylon). It helped the Jewish 
people understand the Old T. in the language that they now commonly spoke- Aramaic. In 586 
B.C, the Hebrews were taken into exile in Babylon, and the last group returned around 432 B.C. 


5) Alan on how Judaism borrowed from earlier myths (which could be true), and he plugs 
Robert Graves as the best source for this, but when it comes to the Septuagint, Robert Graves 
does not share Alan's view: 

"In the creation of Judaism, or the deism ofJu, much complimentary material exists showing the 
adaptations from existing religions (which really were and are one) including how the deity 
created himself For a detailed insight into the mythology of this religion, read "Hebrew Myths, 
the Book of Genesis", by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, ISBN: 0-517-413665" (pg. 26 
'Cutting Through' 1). 

In Judaism, there's no story about God 'creating himself. He's the Un-Caused 1 st Cause of 
Everything, with no Beginning, and in Genesis, reveals himself as the "I Am" (not 'self-created', 
which = Caused). From the outset of Genesis' narrative, one is informed that God is 
transcendant to space/time, existing before the Big Bang, thus, non-spatial & timeless: "in the 
beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth". The idea of the Creator creating Itself is 
contradictory: the 1 st Cause of Everything must itself be Uncaused, if not, no true Beginning. 


STu nuts. Oj' Cos-mic FoHcts, D£iTl&$, 

AS'L.Ei h, Hem-l+s:*, Mo^FS-^k, Gi,*-S!Ts: ANLi 

i RAPHAEL Pllil 




ah p m *to p rfii ni m 

i /; 

i' « » j* 


"TESTES, TESTIFY, TESTIMONY, TESTATE, TEST (examination) - read Hebrew Myths, the Book of 
Genesis, by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai, ISBN 0-517-413663. This book is the most 
detailed in explanations of Hebrew symbolism and meaning. Shows the phallic ritual of 
"swearing oaths whilst holding another's testes, circumci sion etc. Written by two Oxford 
graduates in a scholarly fashion, not an anti-Semitic book" (pg. 56 'Cutting Through' 1). 

Proof that Robert Graves believed that Hebrew & its Scriptures preceded the Septuagint: 

"It was a Jewish common-place that the worst day in Israel's history had not been when 
Sennacherib led the Northern tribes into captivity, nor when Solomon's temple was destroyed 


by Nebuchadnezzar; but when seventy scholars translated the Scriptures into Greek at the 
command of Ptolemy II. These Scriptures, which contained records of evil deeds done by their 
ancestors and reminders of God's punishment for continual back-sliding, should never have 
been divulged to Israel's enemies. The Jacob-Esau myth must have embarrassed Jews of the 
Dispersal more than any other, since Jacob was Israel incarnate and they were his heirs to his 
faults as well as his merits. Nor could Midrashic glosses on the Genesis account denigrating 
Esau and excusing Jacob- alter the scholarly text of the Septuagint" (pg. 233 - Hebrew Myths - 
Robert Graves and Raphael Patai - 1983). 

"Abel's name, 'Hebel', remains unexplained perhaps because the word was well-known to 
mean 'breath', 'nothingness', in reference to human life. (Psalm CXLIV 4; Job VII 10). However, 
in the Septuagint translation, Hebel was written 'Abel' which, transcribed into Hebrew 
becomes Abhel, Ebhel: 'mourning' or 'sorrow' (pg. 88 - Hebrew Myths - Robert Graves and 
Raphael Patai - 1983). 

1 C I K ^ 






"I I fe 


Error#3 - 'Isis Ra El' word-games & other theosophical twists = lies. 

Here's 15 Alan-quotes on the topic: 

1) Alan on 7s/s Ra £/' being derived from the Mystery Religion; and he also equates 
Jehovah with Lucifer: 

"Isis Ra EL" (pg. 44 'Cutting Through' 1). 

"Alan: It's Isis-RA-EL It's the trinity. It's the same with Ellis Island. The symbol of Jehovah, 
which is Lucifer, is the Statue of Liberty; and "El is, " I am, EL IS, Ellis Island. The symbols are 
everywhere. Jackie: And Isis was the main goddess? Alan: That's right. Jackie: And who was RA? 
Alan: RA was a sort of big daddy. His place in the Greek for instance would be Zeus, Roman 
Jupiter. Jackie: And EL was the main god? Alan: EL was a god actually, a Semitic deity that was 
created outside of the holy land and imported with them or into the holy land. He came along 
later. Judaism was a compilation of preexisting stories put into one, and most of the stories 
came from Egypt, and it's all done in allegory. What it does do is give the rules of their system, 
including the right to have slaves" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru Dec. 7 th 

"It's all done in allegory" = Alan's beloved apothegm. Even if textual things are plainly expressed 
without any figurative trimmings, he'd always have us believe that there's an 
esoteric/allegorical meaning residing underneath. Is 'Isis Ra El' the trinity? Weren't Osiris, Isis, 
and Horus (who was also Ra) the proper Egyptian Mystery Religion trinity? 'El' had Semitic 
roots, why on Earth would the Egyptians include 'El' within their trinity? Or in reverse, why 
would the ancient Israelites use 'Isis 7 (a Greek word) or 'Ra' (an Egyptian one)? Alan then says 
that because Yahweh reveals himself as the "I am", and because the Luciferian Statue of Liberty 
is on 'El is' island ("I am God"), they're therefore the one & the same God (theosophy folks). But 
Liberty is in actuality another form of 'the Goddess', arising from the Babylonian Mystery 
Religion, and her torch of illumination has everything to do with the Mysteries and the 
Lucifer/Prometheus/Thoth/Hermes legend. As we'll see later, with the Bible's specific 
references to the Babylonian Mystery Religion, it is against Goddess worship, and Jehovah and 
Lucifer are in fact shown to be separate entities. Does Judaism advocate slavery? No doubt the 
Babylonian, Egyptian, Hellenistic, and Roman world loved slavery, but in Exodus 21:16 it says: 
"And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put 
to death". So how does Alan's Isis Ra El 1 mantra hold up? (something which Jordan Maxwell 
also loves to prattle on about). First of all, where does the word 'Israel 1 come from? It comes 
from the Hebrew word 'Yisra'el', meaning 'he that fights with God' (which derives from the two 
Hebrew words, 'Sara', which means 'he fights', and 'El', 'God'- where also the word 'Elohim' 
comes from). So the origin of the word Yisra'el' has nothing at all to do with 'Isis 1 or 'Ra'. But 
how old is the Hebrew word 'Yisra'el'? The Egyptian 'Merneptah Stele' actually mentions the 
term, which was dated to have been done around 1208 B.C.- but 'Isis' is not ancient Egyptian, 
rather a Coptic Greek translation of the Egyptian 'Uesat' (the word the Egyptians used for 
their Goddess & the wife of Osiris). The Hebrew word 'Yisra'el' no doubt predates the 


Greek term 'Isis', used for the Egyptian Trinitarian Goddess } Uesat\ yet Alan wants us to 
believe that just because the ancient Hebrew word 'Yisra'el' sounds like 'Isis' (Greek), 'Ra' 
(Egyptian), and 'El' (Semitic/Hebrew)- that Judaism is therefore connected to the Mystery 
Religion. Alan did the same with Solomon, telling a caller that he was just the Sun three times 
great in three different languages (signifying the trinity, Hermes Trismagistus, the 
perfected/Illumined man etc.) "Alan: Solomon means SOL-OM-ON. It means the sun in three 
languages. That's what Solomon is. It's three times great. He is Hermes Trismagistus, three 
times great, SOL-OM-ON. That's all it means. Alex: Did he exist? Alan: No. Alex: He didn't exist? 
Alex: No? Alan: SOL is the sun. OM is the sun and ON is the sun. Three times great. It's a 
figurative esoteric Masonic, ancient Masonic term for the perfected man that anyone could 
become. Even the name David comes from DEVI, which means God "(ALAN WATT "CUTTING 
DISTRESS OF NATIONS" October 10, 2007). But Solomon was never called 'Solomon' in the 
Old T., that is a Latin or Greek translation of the Hebrew word 'Shlomoh' (which meant 

From the 'Strong Hebrew Dictionary 1 : hsoio - Httbttf - sh e l6moh (shei-o-mo): from 

H7965; peaceful; Shelomoh, David's successor: - Solomon. H7965 - Ol^ttt 0*?ttt - Shalom 

Shalom (shaw-lome 1 , shaw-lome'), from H7999; safe, that is, (figuratively) well, happy, friendly; also 
(abstractly) welfare, that is, health, prosperity, peace: - X do, familiar, X fare, favour, + friend, X greet, 
(good) health, (X perfect, such as be at) peace (-able, -ably), prosper (-ity, -ous), rest, safe (-ly), salute, 
welfare, (X all is, be) well, X wholly)". 

So how does the Latin/Greek 'Solomon', which sounds like something from the Mystery 
Religion, but which is only a translation of the Hebrew word 'Shlomoh'(and which possesses a 
totally different meaning and sound) somehow prove that Solomon didn't exist and Judaism is 
connected to the Mystery Religion/Freemasonry? It doesn't, Alan is making a bunk connection. 
He has also tried to do the same with the words 'Amen' and 'Amon-Ra' (Jordan Maxwell too), 
and Keith Truth did a nice job of explaining why that doesn't fly. (Remember that Jordan is an 
admitted Theosophist/disciple of Blavatsky's writings, and in one of her books, the name of the 
New Age saviour is 'Jordanus Maximus'; he also admits that he was good friends with Manley 
Palmer Hall, the famous 20 th Century philosopher-Mason/Luciferian, supports the NWO, and 
says he's in telepathic contact with aliens from the Pleiades. Jordan is a great example of 
of a theosophist, & him & Alan share many of the same views on ancient history & religion): 

From the 'New Age Infiltration of the Truth Movement' by Keith Truth - available on Youtube: 
"A guy in the audience asking Maxwell a question: "my first question is regarding Isis Ra 
Elohim?" Maxwell: "Isis was a feminine principle of Egypt spelled ISIS, Isis. Then the coming of 
one of the pharaohs changed the worship of Isis to the worship of Amen-Re, Amen-Ra, which is 
incidentally why Christians still say 'Amen' in the prayer, because they're sending a prayer 
through God's son, Amen-Re, or Amon-Ra, Amen. And consequently, when the Phoenician- 
Canaanites, when the Hebrews went and walked into Palestine they encountered a people that 
were already therefor thousands of years called Palestinians, which is very clever, where you 
would expect to find Palestinians is in Palestine. And so when they went into Palestine they had 


already learned all of the wisdom and all of the religious teachings of Isis, spelled ISIS, then 
they learned the new concept of the new religion 'Amon-Re', R A, and now they encountered the 
Palestinians, and now the Palestinians' God was 'El', the planet Saturn, El, B'EI. Consequently, a 
religion grew out of Isis, Ra, El; I S R A E L. Israel is nothing more than Isis, Ra and El". Keith 
Truth: "That's a wonderful theory that sounds great, and it sounds well-planned, and it was 
articulated nicely, but it's just simply not true. You see the problem is "Isis" is a Greek and Coptic 
reconstruction of the Egyptian name "Uesat". 'Isis' was not pronounced 'Isis' in ancient Egypt, 
therefore the name 'Israel' could not have been influenced by the name of 'Isis' in antiquity. 
Now, the correct etymology of the word 'Israel' is the following: Israel derives from the Hebrew 
'Yisra'el', 'he that fights with God', which in turn derives from 'sara' ('he fights') and 'El' ('God'). 
This is with respect to Genesis 32, where Jacob wrestled with God, it has nothing to do with Isis 
or Ra. Moreover, 'Amen' is Hebrew for 'so be it', and in the Hebrew it is pronounced 'Ahk-men', 
'Ahkmeng'. The God Amon is an English reconstruction of the Egyptian 'Yamanu', as you can see 
there's no meaningful connection to the words Amen and Amon in their original languages, 
thus Maxwell is only trying to fool you with the English language, and it proves that he's not 

"H3478 -biDttr - yisra'el (yis-raw-ale)' - from H828Q and H410; he will rule as God; Jisrael, a 

symbolical name of Jacob; also (typically) of his posterity: - Israel". "H8280 - mttf - Sarah (saw-raw') - 

a primitive root; to prevail: - have power (as a prince)". "H410 - K ~ 6l (ale) - shortened from H352; 
strength; as adjective mighty; especially the Almighty (but used also of any deity): - God (god), X goodly, 

X great, idol, might (-y one), power, strong. Compare names in "-el." "H543 - ]?fiX - amen (aw-mane)' 

from H539; sure; abstractly faithfulness; adverbially truly: -Amen, so be it, truth)". 

Same with 'David'. Alan said that it came from the word 'Devi', meaning 'God'- but if you just go 
look at the word in its original language, in this case, Hebrew, you'll see that idea crumbling. 
'Devi' is a Hindi name, derived from Sanskrit, meaning goddess. If Alan tells us that David 
means 'God', despite it not meaning that in its original language of Hebrew, then he's playing 
word-tricks, and simply twisting the meanings of words: 

"H1732 - 717 ^17 - david daViyd (daw-veed 1 , daw-veed') - from the same as H1730; loving; 

David, the youngest son of Jesse: - David. H1730 -717 77 - d6d d6d (dode, dode) - from an 
unusedroot meaning properly to boil, that is, (figuratively) to love; by implication a love token, lover, 
friend; specifically an uncle: - (well-) beloved, father's brother, love, uncle". 

2) Alan on how Yahweh = Jove (aka. Jupiter) - more theosophical word-trick inversions: 

"When Greece became the empire of the world, Zeus (Greek for Jupiter) became the boss. For 
the Jews, YHWY is pronounced EEAAVI. Transcribed into Latin the Y is pronounced J and we have 
JAAVI which becomes Jove, another version of Jupiter" fpg. 17 'Cutting Through' 1). 


"Jackie: What about Jehovah's Witnesses? Alan: I think it's time we told them what Jehovah 
means, Jehovah simply means Jove, which is Jupiter, and every person who studies Greek and 
Latin knows that" (pg. 59 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

Nowadays, the most famous of all Masonic/Theosophical word-tricks is the Yahweh-is-Jehovah- 
is-Jove-is-Jupiter-is-Luc\fer one. 'Yahweh' is an ancient Hebrew name, 'Jove 7 is the Latin ablative 
case for the word "Jupiter". YHWH (our rendering 'Yahweh 1 ) was translated by 6 th -10 th Century 
Jewish scholars as 'Yehowah', and post-Renaissance Christian scholars adopted it into 'Jehovah' . 
But connecting it to the Latin 'Jove' just because it sounds similar = stupid scholarship. Shouldn't 
we be connecting words from different languages because of some kind of shared meaning? 
Instead of connecting them because of similarities in sound? The orginal Latin noun-stem was 
'Jovis', 'Jupiter' is for the nominative case (main-subject-words- i.e- 'Jupiter threw the ball') and 
'Jove' is for the ablative case (object-of-preposition-words- i.e- 'She threw the ball with Jove'). 
Let's look at Yahweh's etymological history, and see if it shares any history with Jupiter/Jove. 
Number one, the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, the name for God, has to be one of the most 
obscure names for God in the world, only supplying 4 consonants without vowel points, to be 
read from right to left. When the Masons and other Theosophists try and connect it to Jupiter, 
they're making a case based on a specific pronunciation of that word, but there could be many 
pronunciations to 'YHWH', 'Jehovah' is not its orginal form, and no doubt the meaning of YHWH 
becomes eroded when translating it into other langauges. Let's look at its history and meaning. 

From Wiki: "The form Yahweh is a modern scholarly convention for the Hebrew nin 1 , YHWH. 
The exact historical vocalization of the name as well as its etymology is uncertain". 



•• • — 

* * "The name Yahweh in modern Hebrew script: the four consonants read (right 

to left) YHWH; the vowel-points are below. "Yahweh" is the proper name of God in the Hebrew 
Bible, where it is written as four consonants (YHWH), called the tetragrammaton, ^ 1 the actual 
pronunciation of which is still debated. Jews ceased to use the name in the Greco-Roman 
period, replacing it with the common noun Elohim, "god", to demonstrate the universal 
sovereignty of Israel's God over all others; at the same time, the divine name was increasingly 
regarded as too sacred to be uttered, and was replaced in spoken ritual by the word Adonai 
("My Lord"), or with haShem ("the Name") in everyday speech. From about the 6th to the 10th 
century, it is believed that Jewish scholars used the vowel signs of the Hebrew words Adonai or 
Elohim as the vowels for YHWH, producing the name Jehovah (YeHoWaH), and this was 
adopted by Christian scholars after the Renaissance.^ 1 In the 19th century the eminent Hebrew 
scholar Wilhelm Gesenius (1786-1842) suggested "Yahweh" as the most probable vocalization, 
based on his study of early Greek transcriptions, theophoric names, and the reported 


pronunciation of the name in the Samaritan tradition. 1 ^ 1 As a result, in the 19th and 20th 
centuries biblical scholars began to use the form Yahweh and it became the conventional usage 
in biblical scholarship.^ 41 [ edit ] Etymology: The name is generally linked to a form of the Semitic 
word-stem HWH, conveying the idea of "befalling". Both Amorite personal names and Greek 
transcriptions of the tetragrammaton suggest that the vocalization Yahweh is correct, and as 
such should be read as having derived from a causative verbal form ("he becomes" or "he 
befalls"). On the other hand, if the name is analyzed as a (non-causative) G Stem, the verb "to 
be" plus the name of El, the chief god in the pantheon, could give rise to the forms yahweh-el 
("He is El", "He shows himself as El") or the reverse, El-yohweh (El who shows himself). 1 ^ 1 An 
etymologization of the name, connecting YHWH with the root HYH, is given in the Book of 
Exodus, where YHWH, asked by Moses for his name, replies:... nin 1 -n 1 ?* ddtqn... 'nvLrnr 
d 1 ™ 1 ?... rvnN ivl/n ri'riN nnN'i ro nn^n 'dh 1 ? ^nivl/ 1 htin 'Dn 1 ?^ :dd ,1 ?n. " I AM THAT I AM [...] Thus 
shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you [...] YHWH God of your 
fathers, [...] this is my name for ever" [ Exod3:14 " 15 ]// . 

Here's what the 'Strong's Hebrew and Greek Dictionary' has to say about the possible meanings 

to 'Yehovah': "H3068 - HirP - y hOVcJ h (yeh-ho-vaw') - from H1961; (the) self Existent or 
eternal; Jehovah, Jewish national name of God: - Jehovah, the Lord. Compare H3050, H3069 ". "H1961 - 

nT7 - hayah (haw-yaw') - a primitive root (compare H1933); to exist, that is, be or become, come to 

pass (always emphatic, and not a mere copula or auxiliary): - beacon, X altogether, be (-come, 
accomplished, committed, like), break, cause, come (to pass), continue, do, faint, fall, + follow, happen, 

X have, last, pertain, quit (one-) self, require, X use". "H3050 - 71* - yahh (yaw) - contracted for H3068, 
and meaning the same; Jah, the sacred name: - Jah, the Lord, most vehement. Cp. names in "-iah," "- 

jah." "H3069 - HUT 5 - y e h6vih (yeh-ho-vee 1 ) - a variation of H3068 (used after H136, and pronounced 
by Jews as H430, in order to prevent the repetition of the same sound, since they elsewhere pronounce 
H3Q68 as H136 ):-God". 

3) Alan on how Yahweh in the Old T. is Lucifer/'God of this World' (a theosophical reversal): 


"Jackie: You said that the god of the Old Testament Jehovah, Yahweh was representative of 
Lucifer. Alan: He's the god of the world, and those who follow him benefit from the things of the 
world. Jackie: I've pointed out before that everything that they are promised by this god is all of 
the world, all the riches and the servants, but there is nothing said about the soul, the spirit. 
Alan: No. It's all the things of the world and Jehovah certainly blessed, in the Old Testament, 
everyone regardless of what they did. I mean Jacob even lied to his father and dressed like his 
brother to get the blessings, so he showed his cunning, an accused liar, and so he was blessed 
for it, and so that's just like a mafia system. As long as it's done with cunningness, in masonry. 
Another thing people seem to miss is Jesus, whom they claim to follow, exposed the deception 
of the secret gods when he said to the rabbis "you are of your father, the devil, " and that's 
another word for Satan, for Lucifer. Jackie: And their father of course was god Jehovah, their 
god, their creator, and it just doesn't somehow seem to register with some people. We're out of 
time again; we're now at the hour. "Out of time," that's a silly saying, isn't it?" (Alan on the 
'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru Dec. 6 th 2004). 

So what? Jesus was simply saying, 'y° u do not worship Yahweh the God of Israel, but secretly 
worship the devil' (which no doubt some of the Judaic elite were doing (and had always been 
doing, as the Old T blatantly reveals in Eze. 8:14). So the only way Alan can get away with this 
notion is if in fact we have good grounds to believe that the Devil/Lucifer and Yahweh are the 
same figure within the biblical text, but any reader will know that Lucifer is 'God of this World' 
and not Yahweh, and to prove that they're literally two different characters, one can find many 
examples in the text (especially, Jesus perceiving them as separate beings- why would he praise 
Yahweh yet rebuke the Devil?) Remember, we're not arguing here about the actual existence of 
entities called Yahweh or Lucifer, but rather that within the literary text, these characters are 
not one and the same, and that there isn't one who is either secretly Evil or Good, as their 
nature is unambiguously spelled out. Let's focus on the key phrase 'God of this World', 
something Alan usually mentions; he says it is none other than Yahweh/Jehovah, and that 
therefore makes him the Lucifer/Satan-figure. But what does the biblical text say specifically 
about the 'Lord of the World 1 ? The Bible indeed sees Lucifer, and not Yahweh, as the 'Lord of 
the World', attaining legalistic control over the human race after Adam and Eve decided to 
follow him and rebel against Yahweh Elohim, and because it is his to give, he offers Jesus power 
over the entire Earth within the New Testament Gospels of Matthew and Luke. In the Old T.'s 
Book of Isaiah, and the New T's Book of Revelation- it's made clear that Lucifer is the seat of 
power and authority upon the Earth that has been sustaining and protecting various empires 
and kings that have served him down throughout time (especially Babylon). The Bible does set 
up a contrast between two princes, one a 'Prince of this World' and the other a 'Prince of 
Another World/Peace/Life', and after reading the quotes concerning them, the 'theosophical- 
Yahweh-is-Lord-of-this-World-view seems unfounded. Most theosophical promoters want us to 
believe that the textual characters Yahweh and Satan, or Jesus and Lucifer, are one and the 
same, or they want to invert the schema, and say that Yahweh is Evil and Lucifer is Good. But if 
we're just talking about textual characters, it's clear that within the overall framework of the 
Bible, the action revolves around two separate main-protagonist/antagonist characters, both in 
opposition to each other, but one ultimately inferior to the other. One is Good, the other Evil, 
and concerning who is Good & Evil within the Bible, the theosophists want us to ignore our 


intuitive and common-sense interpretation, and believe their assertion that the Good guy is 
really the Bad guy. To prove that, they simply have to supply the textual evidence, but after 
looking into it, it becomes apparent that their view is without basis. So even though Alan 
attacks theosophy, when he does this kind of theorizing about Yahweh being Satan, he is 
without a doubt speaking like a theosophist. 

Luk 4:5: And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the 

kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this 
power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to 
whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. 

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which 

believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image 
of God, should shine unto them. 

Joh 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. 

Joh 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and 

hath nothing in me. 
Joh 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. 

Joh 18:36 Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of 
this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to 
the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. 

Isa 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon 

his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The 

everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. 

Act 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are 

"Alan: That's the exoteric meaning of Jehovah. There's an esoteric meaning for Jehovah too. 
Jackie: What is the esoteric meaning? Alan: Actually it's four words: Yod-He-Vav-He. It's earth, 


air, fire and water. Jackie: Yahaveh is what? Alan: Earth, air, fire and water, which is behind all 
of the mystery groups right down to the present. Jackie:Yahaveh means earth, air, fire and 
water. Do the Jews know this? Alan: The rabbis do. Jackie: What do the Jewish people think it 
is? It's Hebrew. Alan: Well, they think what they're told to think and there' re content with very 
little really, but most of them aren't terribly religious. They're quite content what they're given. 
Jackie: So that is very materialistic when you think about it. Alan: It is. Jackie: The god of this 
world, of this world, the third dimensional material world" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' 
with Jackie Patru Feb. 22 nd 2005). 


How can it be those four words for certain? There is a debate as to what it means: 

Chris White compiled a list of candidates of what it could mean in 'Debunking Jordan Maxwell': 'he that 
has sent me\ 'he who is always the same', 'he who is absolutely truly existing', 'I am the one', 'I am', 'I 
am whatever I need to become'. "Earth, air, fire, and water" = a theosophical interpretation. 

4) Alan on how the Jews "had never been mono-theistic": 

"Jews had never been monotheistic. There is ample evidence left in the Old Testament 
concerning female prostitutes and dog-priests, showing the same characteristics of the other 
religions from Greece, Egypt, Phoenicia to India" fpg. 25 'Cutting Through' 1). 

The Old T. is quite clear about renegade Jews (even Solomon himself) building temples and 
giving sacrifices to other foreign gods, thus demonstrating Jews straying away from the mono- 
theistic Judaic faith, not that Judaism is somehow a polytheistic belief system. The Old T. does 
not have the same characteristics as the religions of Greece, Egypt, India, and Phoenicia. Those 
are all all tied to the Mystery Religion, and the Old T. is fundamentally opposed to the 
Babylonian Mystery Religion. Instead of shared characteristics, the Old T. and the Mystery 
Religion have fundamental dissimilarities. On page 54 of Alan's CT1, where he specifically 
names all of the trinities made by the ancient priesthood, he names one for Greece, Egypt, 
India, and Phoenicia, and they're worth noting (but of course, he doesn't tell the reader about 
version 1.0, namely, the Sumerian trinity of Nimrod, Semiramis, and the reborn Sun Tammuz 
(because the Old T. is all about bashing them). Alan lists the Greek trinity as being Zeus, 
Poseidon, and Hades; the Egyptian, Osiris, Isis, and Horus (no surprise); the Hindu, Brahma, 
Vishnu, and Siva; and the Phoenician, Ashtaroth, Milcom, and Chemosh. This is where it gets 
interesting as the Old T. specifically refers to those three names from the Phoenician trinity 
(among other names) as enemies of Yahweh and Israel, and tells how they required their 
worshippers to burn little babies to them in supplication. Yahweh clearly abhors human 
sacrifice, so for Alan to say that Judaism (the Old Testament) shares traits with either the 
Mystery Religion trinities of Greece, Egypt, India, and Phoenicia is laughable and fundamentally 


wrong (as they're all polytheistic). We know that Alan loves to connect the Mystery Religion to 
the Bible, but others have tried to go more mainstream and instead connect it to Egyptian 
mono-theistic sun-worship. But it's worth reprinting what Dr. Zuhdi wrote in his review of 
Greenberg's 'The Moses Mystery'. In it, he succinctly tells that the Judaism-copied-Egypt-theory 
is doomed because the historical evidence now shows that the stories and traditions of Judaism 
pre-date the myths of Egypt: 

From 'A review of Gary Greenberg's book the 'Moses Mystery' (1997) from 'KMT: A Modern 
Journal of Ancient Egypt, 8:3, Fall 1997 by Dr. O. Zuhdi' "The author devotes much space to 
linking incidents in the lives of Abraham, Isaac, Esau and Jacob with Egyptian models. He 
foresees that critics might nit-pick at some specifics, but is seemingly unaware of Near Eastern 
clues in the patriarchal narratives which place the origin of these tales well into the Second 
Millennium B.C. These include Abraham and Isaac describing their wives as sisters (sister was 
the highest level of wife in Mesopotamian culture), Sarah's letting her maidservant bear a child 
in her stead (a custom well attested at Nuzi) and Esau's selling of his birthright (also attested at 
Nuzi). Such specifics and others place the origin of the Pentateuch circa 1500 B.C, for these 
customs were unknown or illegal in the Israel of monarchical or exilic times (ca. 950-500 BC). 
They also were unknown to the Egyptians, so could not have originated from that quarter. 
Greenberg's contention that Esau is Set and Jacob Horus, that the story of these patriarchs 
derives from the Contending of Horus and Set (238), therefore, is untenable prima facie, for the 
patriarchal narrative predates the Egyptian myth, which was first attested in 1145-1141 B.C, 
during the reign of Rameses V" ( ). 

5) Alan on the 'Creation of Adam and Eve in the Book of Genesis': 

"In Gene -Sis, 'god' created Man and Woman. Later we find there was no-one to till the soil, so 
he created Adam (A— Dam) then Eve (Ivy)". - pg. 27 'Cutting Through' 2 

Alan has repeatedly said that in Genesis we encounter two creations, first Man and Woman, 
and then, because God had no one to till the Earth (Adam & Eve). He claims that this 


symbolically represents the division between the ruling elites and the common-folk, but sorry, if 
one realizes that Gen. 1 & 2 are not connected in a temporally linear fashion, then that theory 
falls apart. The narrative in Genesis 1 speaks about one creation event involving humans, and in 
Genesis 2, that same event is just repeated again, but in another way. 

The Genesis aCCOUnt (fromWiki): "The passages have had an exceptionally long and 
complex history of interpretation. Until the latter half of the 19th century, they were seen as 
one continuous, uniform story with Genesis 1:1-2:6 outlining the world's origin, and 2:7- 
2:25 [8] :p ' 297 carefully painting a more detailed picture of the creation of humanity. Modern 
scholarship, persuaded by (1) the use of two different names for God, (2) two different 
emphases (physical vs. moral issues), and (3) a different order of creation (plants before 
humans vs. plants after humans), advances that these are two distinct scriptures written many 
years apart by two different sources. ^ ^ Genesis 2:4: 'These are the generations of the 
heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God ( Yahweh 
Elohim) made the earth and the heavens". "Structure and composition: Genesis 1 consists of 
eight acts of creation within a six day framework followed by a day of rest. In each of the first 
three days there is an act of division: Day one divides the darkness from light; day two, the 
waters from the skies; and day three, the sea from the land. In each of the next three days 
these divisions are populated: day four populates what was created on day one, and heavenly 
bodies are placed in the darkness and light; day five populates what was created on day two, 
and fish and birds are placed in the seas and skies; finally, day six populates what was created 
on day three, and animals and man are place on the land. This six-day structure is symmetrically 
bracketed: On day zero primeval chaos reigns, and on day seven there is cosmic order.^ 1 . 
Genesis 2 is a simple linear narrative, with the exception of the parenthesis about the four 
rivers at 2:10-14 . This interrupts the forward movement of the narrative and is possibly a later 
insertion.^ 1 The two are joined by Genesis 2:4 (which echoes the first line of Genesis 1, "In the 
beginning Elohim created both the heavens and the earth", but is reversed). The significance of 
this, if any, is unclear, but it does reflect the preoccupation of each chapter, Genesis 1 looking 
down from heaven, and Genesis 2 looking up from the earth".^ 1 

That is just a theory (the 2-sources/2-authors-for-the-Creation-Account-theory), but it shows 
that biblical interpreters see the Genesis 1 & 2 creation account of humans as not connected in 
a temporally linear manner (going from Gen. 1 to 2), but are rather different versions of the 
same central story. It's clear that the two narratives are coming from different perspectives: in 
Genesis 1, we are introduced to Elohim, Man, and Woman, in Genesis 2, Yahweh, Adam and 
Eve. Some scholars have suggested that Genesis 1 is all about God looking down from above the 
Earth (the reader being exposed to the physical aspects of reality (the Universe, its creation and 
the birth of time and space and order), and in Genesis 2, God is now upon the Earth, literally 
walking through the Garden He made. In Genesis 1, the reader is introduced to the created & 


orderly, physical/material aspect of existence, and in Genesis 2, the moral dimension, and 
without a doubt, the key to understanding the Genesis creation account is by understanding 
the fundamental differences between the two narratives, and that suggests that they do not 
have separate authors, but were perhaps specifically constructed and meant to be taken 
together. It's obvious that Alan's theory could still hold, that the difference between them (Gen. 
1 saying '/Wan', and Gen. 2, 'Adam') could symbolize a deeper esoteric theme, but as we'll see in 
a bit, this difference of 'Man' and 'Adam' in the English & Greek bible disappears once we go 
back to its original Hebrew version. 

6) Alan on the meaning of the word 'Christ': 

"The word Christ, Chrystos etc., comes from India, where it was called Krishna" (pg. 31 'Cutting 
Through' 1). 

'Christ/Chrystos' is Greek for the Hebrew word 'Messiah' (which means 'anointed one'). From "Although many critics allege Krishna means Christ, Krishna in Sanskrit actually 
translates as Black (One) as Krishna was believed to have blackish-blue skin. The word Christ 
literally translates as Anointed One. When skeptics, in turn, spell Krishna as Chrishna or 
Christna, this is a blatant attempt to spread more misinformation and reinforce their erroneous 
theories" ( similarities.html ). 

"Alan: Christ comes from Crista, C-R-l-S-T-A, and it means the crest of a bird, just the same as a 
plume, as the comb on the head of a bird. It's the crest. That's what crista means. Look it up. The 
old word was Cresco and crinis. Cristatus. The ancient Latin used to be Draco. Draco from the 
drake the cock of the male bird, the crest of the male bird. The cock. It's the plume or crest of a 
helmet of a knight. Crista. The guys who are rambling at the top, in charge of all these huge 
physical temples know all this stuff, they're well aware of it. From the arch of your foot to the 
crown of your head. I'm not following anybody" (pg. 184 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

This one is quite amazing, and representative of Alan's semantical mumbo-jumbo. To uncover 
the meaning of 'Chrystos', which is Greek for the Hebrew word 'Messiah' ('anointed one'), Alan 
connects it to other Greek and Latin words, but if he'd just look up the meaning of the word in 


its original Hebrew, then everything would be settled. Why is he connecting it to other words 
that are not even from the same language as the original root-word in question? ('Messiah'). 
Notice how he says, "the guys at the top know all of this stuff- know what stuff? (probably that 
it's all bullshit). When we get to Error#5, where Alan says that Paul never even existed, we'll see 
how illogical his word associations can get (rambling on for over a minute, connecting his name 
to various Greek and Latin words, claiming that it all proves he never even existed and was 
made up by the Mystery Religion). 

7) Alan on the meaning of the word 'Abba': 

"Jackie: Do you know what Abba means? Alan: Well, basically it's a Masonic term for the 
offspring of a father's brother. It's a Masonic term" fpg. 192 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

From Wikipedia: " Abba, an originally Aramaic form borrowed into Modern Hebrew [20] (written 
A(3(3a in Greek, and 'abba in Aramaic), is immediately followed by the Greek equivalent (nair|p) 
with no explicit mention of it being a translation. The phrase Abba, Father is repeated in 
Romans 8:15 and Galatians 4:6. In Aramaic, it would be nun. Note, the name Barabbas is a 
Hellenization of the Aramaic Bar Abba (m nun), literally, "Son of the Father". 

Mark 14:36: "Abba, Father, " he said, "everything is possible for you. Take this cup from me." 

'Abba 1 is an Aramaic term for 'father'- so why doesn't he just say that? Masonry in its present 
form accompanied with English arguably began no more than 500-600 years ago, yet Aramaic is 
an ancient language. So how can he claim that it originally derived from Masonry? 

8) Alan on how Yahweh is a late-comer in the Old T: 

"Alan: But if you go into the Old Testament, Jehovah or Yahweh is a latecomer. He comes on the 
scene after the Elohim and the Elohim are the creators you might say, so definitely Yahweh was 
a local deity that was then pushed - in fact he was the volcano god and he was eventually 
pushed up to overtake everyone else, not by Jews but by the ruling governments of the day" 
(Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru April. 13 th 2005). 

Alan is talking about how in Genesis 1 and the beginning of Genesis 2, the term 'Elohim 1 is used 
(Hebrew for God), but then by the time we get to Genesis 2:4, it has changed into 'Yahweh 
Elohim 1 (translated as 'Lord God). Because 'Elohim 1 supposedly denotes a plurality of Gods, 
Alan thinks that this change of title signifies a different being arriving on the scene- but what 
does the 'Strong Hebrew Bible Dictionary' have to say about the meaning of the word 'Elohim'? 
(before we hear it conjoined with 'Yahweh'?): 

"Strong Dictionary: 'el-O-heem ' : Plural of H433 ; gods in the ordinary sense; but specifically 
used (in the plural thus, especially with the article) of the supreme God;" 


From Wiki: 'Elohim' = D'Hr^: "The word occurs more than 2500 times in the Hebrew bible, with 

meanings ranging from "god" in a general sense (as in Exodus 12:12, where it describes "the gods of 
Egypt"), to a specific god (e.g., 1 Kings 11:33, where it describes Chemosh "the god of Moab", or the 
frequent references to Yahweh as the "elohim" of Israel), to demons, seraphim, and other supernatural 
beings, to the spirits of the dead brought up at the behest of King Saul in 1 Samuel 28:13, and even to 
kings and prophets (e.g., Exodus 4:16) M The phrase bene elohim, usually translated "sons of God", has 
an exact parallel in Ugaritic and Phoenician texts, referring to the council of the gods. m Elohim occurs 
frequently throughout the Torah . In some cases (e.g. Exodus 3:4, "... Elohim called unto him out 
of the midst of the bush ..."), it acts as a singular noun in Hebrew grammar, and is then 
generally understood to denote the single God of Israel . In other cases, Elohim acts as an 
ordinary plural of the word Eloah, and refers to the polytheistic notion of multiple gods (for 
example, Exodus 20:3, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me."). In still other cases, the 
meaning is not clear from the text, but may refer to powerful beings (e.g. Genesis 6:2, "... the 
sons of the Elohim (e-aleim) saw the daughters of men (e-adam, the adam) that they were fair; 
and they took them for wives..". 

Alan is full of shit. In Genesis 1-3 (the passages we must look at to see if Alan's initial-many- 
Elohim-&-the-late-comer-Yahweh-textual-view is correct), 'Elohim 7 is always used with a 
definite article (to signify the one singular Creator-God, thus differentiating Him from all 
others). It's obvious that we're dealing with monotheism when reading Genesis 1 in its original 
Hebrew, as we're told very clearly from its grammar and word choice that a Supreme-Creator 
God has made the Universe. There are no other Gods or beings with him in the beginning, and 
every time 'Elohim' is mentioned in Genesis 1 (when he's introduced, creates the Universe, and 
then Mankind), it has a definite article. No doubt other Ugaritic and Semitic texts used the word 
'el' for their Gods (the Israelites shared linguistic roots with many peoples though), and it 
doesn't matter if early polytheistic Arabs used the term 'El' in a pluralistic way- what it all comes 
down to is how the writers of the Hebrew Old Testament intended to use it. If anyone could 
ever prove that 'Elohim' in Genesis 1 signified a plurality of separate Gods, then that would be 
an amazing thing indeed and surely the death of Judaism: one would have exposed a 
polytheistic system masquerading as a mono-theistic one within the 1 st chapter of its own book. 
From Genesis 2:4 and onwards, God ('Elohim') becomes personalized to the reader by being 
given the title of 'Lord God' ('Yahweh Elohim'), and one could say a million things about this 
title change. .maybe it reveals how God now possesses some sort of authority over his creation 
(now that the Creation Week of Genesis has ended), and indeed in Gen. 2:4, when the term 
'Lord God' is invoked ('Yahweh Elohim'), the reader is then immediately told that He is 
responsible for creating the Heavens and the Earth (perhaps thus having the justifiable right to 
claim 'Lordship' and authority over it?). That view is still better than Alan's idea that 'in the 
beginning Yahweh the Volcano God killed off all the other Gods'. The use of the plural 'Elohim' 


with an accompanying definite article represents intensification, rather than number, and it's 
been referred to by Hebrew scholars as the 'plural of majesty & potentiality 1 . 

Elohim Or Yahweh? From: 'Hard Sayings of the Bible' by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. 
Davids, F. F. Bruce, Manfred T. Brauch - InterVarsity Press, - pg. 87-88: 

"Why does Genesis 1 refer to God exclusively by the Hebrew title Elohim, "God," while the 
second chapter of Genesis, beginning in the second half of Genesis 2:4, speaks exclusively of 
Yahweh Elohim, that is, "the LORD God"? So striking is this divergence of the divine names that 
it has been common in critical circles of biblical scholarship to conclude that the writer, or, as 
those in the critical school prefer, the redactor (a sort of copyeditor) used basically two 
different sources for the two creation accounts found in the two chapters. The person who 
paved the way for this theory of dual sources was Jean Astruc (1684-1766), the personal 
physician to Louis XV and a professor on the medical faculty of the University of Paris. While he 
still held to the Mosaic authorship of all of the Pentateuch, his volume on the book of Genesis 
published in 1753 offered the major clue that the names Elohim and Yahweh were the telltale 
traces that Moses used two sources to compose this material - material that obviously recorded 
events occurring before his time. This explanation as to how Moses had access to material far 
beyond his own lifetime and the reason for the use of the dual names, however, was too facile; 
it failed to note that the variation in the employment of these two divine names in the book of 
Genesis was subject to certain rules that could be described rather precisely. First of all, the 
name Yahweh, "LORD," (notice the English translation convention of rendering this name in 
large and small capital letters, as opposed to "Lord," which renders another word meaning 
something like "master") is a proper noun used exclusively of the God of Israel. Elohim, on the 
other hand, is a generic term for "God" or "gods" that only subsequently became a proper 
name. Yahweh is used wherever the Bible stresses God's personal relationship with his people 
and the ethical aspect of his nature. Elohim, on the other hand, refers to God as the Creator of 
the whole universe of people and things, and especially of the material world: he was the ruler 
of nature, the source of all life. This variation of divine names can be seen most dramatically in 
texts like Psalm 19. In this psalm Elohim is used in the first part, which describes God's work in 
creation and his relationship to the material world. But in the middle of the psalm the psalmist 
switches to the topic of the law of the LORD and the relationship the LORD has with those who 
know him; there the name Yahweh appears. A further complication occurs because Exodus 6:3 
notes that God says, "I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my 
name the LORD I did not make myself known to them." The resolution to this apparent 
contradiction to some 150 uses of the name Yahweh during the patriarchal period is to be 
found in a technical point of Hebrew grammar, known as beth essentiae, in the phrase "by my 
name." This phrase meant that while Abraham, Isaac and Jacob heard and used the name 
Yahweh, it was only in Moses' day that the realization of the character, nature and essence of 
what that name meant became clear. "By the name" is better translated "in the character [or 
nature] of Yahweh [was I not known]." Thus the name Yahwoh is used when the Bible wishes to 
present the personal character of God and his direct relationship with those human beings who 
have a special association with him. Contrariwise, Elohim occurs when the Scriptures are 


referring to God as a transcendent Being who is the author of the material world, yet One who 
stands above it. Elohim conveys the more philosophically oriented concept that connects deity 
with the existence of the world and humanity. But for those who seek the more direct, personal 
and ethically oriented view of God, the term Yahweh was more appropriate. Accordingly, 
Genesis 1 correctly used the name Elohim, for God's role as Creator of the whole universe and 
of all living things and all mortals is what the chapter teaches. The subject narrows immediately 
in Genesis 2-3, however; there it describes God's very intimate and personal relationship with 
the first human pair, Adam and Eve. God is depicted as walking and talking with Adam in the 
Garden of Eden. Therefore Yahweh is appropriately joined to Elohim to indicate that the Elohim 
of all creation is now the Yahweh who is intimately concerned to maintain a personal 
relationship with those who will walk and talk with him". 

9) Alan on how the Mason Kipling said that Yahweh = Jove 

"Jackie: There was a Masonic song and it was sung to the tune of "God Save the King, " which is 
the same tune of, what is it, "Oh Beautiful for Spacious Skies, " or whatever, well right in that 
song the lyric are Jehovah, Jove, Oh Lord. Alan: That's right and Rudyard Kipling also wrote it 
and he said, "Jehovah, Jove, by George. " It's a big joke to them because ultimately in 
freemasonry the high masons are taught the truth" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with 
Jackie Patru April. 13 th 2005). 

"Jackie: I received a call from a listener last night and he is a long-time listener but he was really 
thrilled to hear you mention the CIA behind many of the shortwave alternative broadcasts, but 
he said, " to be honest with you, I had quit listening for a while when you had Alan on and he 
said that Jesus was the same as Jupiter. "And I said no he didn't and he was convinced and I 
said, "no, you misunderstood what he told us, " and I looked it up of course. I didn't carry this on 
in the conversation but you can search and find it in so many places that Jehovah, Jupiter, Jove, 
are all one and the same. Alan: That's right. Rudyard Kipling even wrote a little poem on it, and 
it ended with "Jehovah, Jupiter, Jove, by George. " That's how it ended; he was a high mason too, 
so they all know. Of course it's a mystery religion and it's been around for thousands and 
thousands of years and they've controlled all other established religions. They certainly took 
them over from the beginning" - (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru April. 27 th 

So because the Mason Rudyard Kipling wrote in a poem that Jehovah is Jupiter, it is therefore 
true? Even though Alan blasts the Masons, he still repeatedly tells us that they always have 
access to the truth. The Freemasons and theosophists secretly worship Lucifer the harbringer of 
the Mysteries, and that no doubt makes them biased when it comes to Judaism & Christianity. 

10) Alan on how Albert Pike (the notorious Sovereign Commander of the Scottish Rite of 
Freemasonry) says that Lucifer = Adonay (Yahweh); Alan says that Jehovah is a volcano God. 


"Alan: Read Albert Pike's "Morals and Dogma 1 ' and he tells you that freemasonry is a religion 
and he tells you again, he says, "make no mistake. Lucifer is God, " and unfortunately so is 
Adonai. Jackie: He says that in "Morals and Dogma"? Alan: It's in "Morals and Dogma". Make 
no mistake, he says, "Lucifer is God. " Lucifer is the light you see he's talking about. Jackie: In the 
Masonic rituals, I actually have this in Chapter 16 and 17 of the book, they say to the 
Freemasons when they get up high enough the lost word is Jehovah. That's in one of the 
initiations or the part - so Lucifer and Jehovah are the Masonic gods? Alan: They're two sides of 
the same coin. Jackie: Well of course. I mean Lucifer - the reason I'm saying this is because of 
the call I received from a listener who said that referring to Jehovah as Lucifer is blasphemy, well 
but it isn't Jehovah it's Yahweh, and that I was being put on an altar, that he would take me if I 
was wrong or take her if she was wrong. Now this is not a cruel lady. What she is saying she 
means it with all of her heart and soul because she believes with all her heart and soul that 
Yahweh, or however they do it, that is creator and that is the god Jehovah but it's using his 
name wrong. You see the whole thing is so twisted. Alan: When you cut through the chase of 
freemasonry, most people don't get beyond the third degree and they're quite happy as a 
Master Mason, you see, but "life begins at 40" and that's what it means, the 40th degree is 
when they start to tell you what the real truth is" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie 
Patru April. 20 th 2005). 

For Masons, Lucifer and the term 'Jehovah 7 are one and the same, but not for Bible-readers. For 
them, equating Yahweh with Lucifer is tantamount to a misuse of the word, and notice how 
Jackie mentioned to Alan that a listener called her up and told her that very thing, that she was 
misusing the word, and Alan responded: "when you cut through the chase of freemasonry, most 
people don't get beyond the third degree and they're quite happy as a Master Mason"- implying 
that the Masons don't get the truth (but other times he says the reverse, that they're privy to 
it). He seems to hint to Jackie that any equivocation made between the word 'Yahweh' and 
'Lucifer' is unwarranted (though he did agree with her and say that there's a link between 
Lucifer and 'Jehovah'). The Lucifer-is-Jehovah-equation = theosophical juggling. Also, Jackie told 
a lie when she said that "they say to the freemasons when they get up high enough the lost 
word is Jehovah". The lost word of the deity that Masons learn in the 'Royal Arch Degree' is 
Jebulon (Jahbulon), and its three-part composite structure clearly links it to the Mystery 
Religion (being Jehovah, Baal, and On (for Osiris)). The lost word is an important topic as it tells 
us what Gods the Freemasons are preoccupied with in the higher degrees, namely Baal and 
Osiris (who were both simply alternate forms of Nimrod the 1 st Freemason and Builder) ('Osiris' 
was 'Orion' in Egypt, and the 3 Pyramids were meant to copy his belt (being a grand homage to 
him, and remarkably, Robert Graves (Alan's fave source) tells us in 'Hebrew Myths' that the 
ancient Persians called 'Orion' 'Nimrod')). But why doesn't Alan correct her when she says that 
'Jehovah 1 is the lost word (which = the God) of Freemasonry? If Alan is such an expert about the 


Freemasons, then why can't he get it right and correct her? One gets the feeling sometimes 
that Alan is shielding the Freemasons at a very subtle level. 

https://secure.Qn.apc.orQ/members/www. bi\derberQ.orQ/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1069S 

"Alan: Albert Pike also said, make no doubt about it that "Lucifer is God. "Jackie: He said that in 
"Morals and Dogma"? Alan: "Morals and Dogma, " yes. Jackie: Well, he is the lord of this world. 
Alan: Lord of the world, absolutely, that's Jehovah. That's the big secret that has been hidden 
from everyone for so long. In the beginning they were gods, Elohim, which was plural, and 
eventually this little earthly god, the volcano god, took over. Jackie: The volcano god? Is that 
Jehovah? Alan: That's Jehovah, yes. Jackie: Actually, wasn't that like a phantom that the 
priesthood made up for people to worship? Alan: Basically the volcano symbolized again a 
pyramid with the top blowing, which is the fire, the fire in the middle, and that's the symbol 
again of the logic. That's why Mr. Spock in Star Trek was a Vulcan. He ran on law and logic, you 
see. It's all symbolic and if you look at the little badges they get and cards for their induction, 
the boys in Judaism, when they're 12 or 13-Jackie: When they get Bar Mitzvah? Alan: Yes. You'll 
see right there that that's a symbol of a volcano blowing smoke and that's the symbol of- 
again, it's not real, a real people doing a real thing, it's a priesthood, not a big priesthood either, 
who's manipulated all the religions down through the ages and it's all symbolic and allegorical 
of this priesthood. The volcano is the smoke by day and the fire by night. Jackie: You mean it's 
talked about in the Bible? In the Old Testament? Alan: That's right. Jackie: Smoke by day and 
fire by night. Alan: Yes, and that's all symbolic and allegorical of an ancient, ancient priesthood 
that's many, many thousands of years old" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru 
Dec. 28 th 2004). 

There's nothing at all in Genesis to back up the notion that "in the Beginning they were Gods' J 

What about Alan's idea that the account of the Israelites following "smoke by day and fire by 
night" proves that Yahweh is in reality a Volcano God? from: 'Ages in Chaos: The True Story of 
Moses and the Pharaoh According to Velikovsky by Kemal Menemencioglu (copyright © 2007 

57 "The Eruption of the Santorini volcano in the Aegean Island of Thera was 
believed to have occurred at that age. Geologists have given such diverse ages as 1638 B.C. and 
1360 B.C. for this catastrophe. Velikovsky claims that a chain of volcanoes exploded causing the 
plagues of Egypt. The Santorini explosion is known to have caused such radical changes such as 
the end of the Mycenaean civilization. It was many times more powerful than the eruption of 
Karakatoa in 1883, which shook the world and caused 35 thousands deaths. At the same time, 
Mount Vesusius is believed to have erupted in a huge blast. The Santorini eruption was 
believed to have been a thousand times more powerful than a nuclear bomb. In the 
Pentateuch, it is mentioned that there was pillar of smoke by day and a pillar of fire by night to 
guide the Israelites on their journey. Velikovsky believes that the Sinai mountain, which is 
volcanic, erupted and as volcanoes appear to be pillars of smoke by day and pillars of fire by 
night, this would explain this enigmatic reference" ( http://www.hermetics.orR/exodus.html ). 

"Alan: The reason they chose four gospels was for the north, south, east and the west. It was for 
the 'four corners of the world" as they called it; the square, the ashlar, the perfection, and it's 
highly Masonic in its origin. "Jesus" itself from the Latin - there's no such thing in Hebrew as 
"Jesus," and you'd have "Yeshu" would be the closest you'd get to it. Jesus, in a sense, if you 
were to speak it in the French is Je suis, meaning "I am, " and that's what every Mason must say, 
because "I am" means you're ultimately going to the higher G, which is beyond even Moses or 
grafting, it's to godhood. That's the secret behind the high, high freemasonry, you become as 
God, and it's the same thing with all the other religions if you look into them deeply enough. 
They all come from the same roots" (ALAN WATT "CUTTING THROUGH THE MATRIX" LIVE ON 
August 27, 2007). 

Alan mentions going beyond God and into Godhood, an utterly theosophical notion. The 
monotheistic religions are not about attaining 'God-hood/becoming a God, that's only with 
some Eastern and theosophically-based religions. So because the Aramaic word 'Yeshua' 
becomes 'Jesus' in Greek, and because the Greek 'Jesus' sounds like the French 'Je suis' ("I 
am")- Christianity is a product of the Mystery Religion? (he will explicitly say that coming up). 

11) Alan on how Yahweh-worshippers in reality follow Lucifer: 

"Jackie: I know but you know there are so many people who say I'm a Christian and worship and 
adore Yahweh, Jehovah, Jove, Lucifer and they don't even realize they're doing it. Alan: That's 
how far mind control can take you and really it's also a choice for them and you can't really do 
anything about it" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru April. 20 th 2005). 

Clearly, the Jews worshipped the monotheistic God, Yahweh, so let's highlight a major 
difference between Yahweh and the Mystery Religion, and see how utterly dumb it would be to 
say that Yahweh is the 'God of this World' (Lucifer, the Demi-Urge, the God of Freemasonry), as 
Alan claims. The Babylonian Mystery Religion irrefutably endorsed human sacrifice, as 


Baal/Molech (Nimrod) worshippers burned little babies alive, whereas the Old TVs Yahweh 
absolutely abhorred it (why in fact he told the Israelites to go out and exterminate the 
Canaanites, who liked to roast babies). Yahweh demanded it only once, to test Abraham's faith- 
so to confuse Yahweh with the God of this World is nothing but a theosophical distortion. It's 
quite clear when reading the Old T. that Yahweh is in fact the Good guy (as he forbids 
murdering anyone, putting people into slavery etc), however, the Mystery Religion created the 
practice of human sacrifice. So to say that Yahweh/Jehovah represents the demi-urge/Jupiter/ 
Saturn/the force of Freemasonry/Lucifer is a classic theosophical reversal, seen especially 
within the writings of Pike, Blavatsky and Bailey. 

12) Alan-quotes on how the Bible was put together/connected to the Mystery Religion: 

"Alan: That's why they put Genesis together, the "Gene of Isis, " because it contains their 
Mystery Religion and of course religion dominates the mind. That's what its function was meant 
to do. It limits your scope of thinking" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru 
April. 20 th 2005). 

So what does 'Genesis' mean? 

From Wiki: "The Book of Genesis ( Greek : Tsveolc;, "birth", "origin," from Hebrew : pi'VL/nizl, 
B'reishit (Biblical: B'reshiyth), "in the beginning") 111 is the first book of the Hebrew Bible (the 
Christian Old Testament ). In Hebrew the book is called Bereishit, meaning "in the beginning." 
This title is the first word of the Hebrew text - a method by which all five books of the To rah are 
named. When the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek in the 3rd century BC to produce the 
Septuagint, the name given was Veyeoiq Genesis, meaning "birth" or "origin." This was in line 
with the Septuagint use of subject themes as book names. The Greek title has continued to be 
used in all subsequent Latin and English versions of the Bible, and most other languages". 


Because 'Isis* is the Coptic Greek reconstruction of the Egyptian 'Uesat' , and because the 1 st 
book of the Pentateuch was originally written in Hebrew, and not in Greek- the 'Gene of Isis' = 
another word-trick. 'Genesis' is Greek for "birth/origin/beginning" (a translation of the Hebrew 
term 'B'reshiyth' (meaning "in the beginning"), so if the Greek term 'Genesis' was in fact the 1 st 
name for the Bible's 1 st book, then no doubt a possible link could be made between the Bible 
and the Mystery Religion (as 'Isis 1 is Greek, the Greek translation of the Egyptian word 'Uesat). 
In other words, if the Old T's 'Book of Genesis' was originally written in Greek, and not in 
Hebrew, then a case could be made for the 'Gene of Isis' theory. But since the Hebrew Bible's 
Book of Genesis was written down long before the Septuagint translation, than that notion 
cannot hold. If Alan wants to make a case for the Bible being made by the Mystery Religion, 
then he needs to delve deeper into the biblical text and show specific passages and themes that 
indeed demonstrate a connection or similarity with the Mystery Religion (not just point to 
words or stress how words sound like other words in other languages). The easiest way is just 
scrutinizing the text itself, but notice how he never quotes anything? or tells us to evaluate 
specific passages that contain embedded 'Mystery-Religion-themes'? It's simply because the 
text will not bend to his theosophical wishes, and as we'll see later, it is antithetical to the 
Babylonian Mystery Religion. 

"Alan: "That's right. You'll find if you say "Jesus" and then take it into the French, you have "Je 
Suis, " I Am. Jesuit is Je Suis, same thing, "I am. " The whole thing is the mystery religion. All of it 
is the mystery religion" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru April. 13 th 2005). 

Wow, so because Jesus (Greek for Yeshua) sounds like the French I am ('Je suis') Christianity is 
connected to the Mystery Religion? This kind of logic is hilarious. Reminds me of the time I 
heard Glen Kealey doing something similar with a bunch of unrelated words. To be honest, if it 
wasn't for the sound of Alan's voice and his ability to phrase things, people would not buy it. 

13) Alan on how Adam was a hermaphrodite in the Garden of Eden: 

"Jackie: I remember in Genesis where it says, male and female made He them. Alan: Yes, and of 
course if you go into the Talmud they also talk about that. It doesn't mean they made male and 
female one and one. It can also mean he made a bunch of male and female-Jackie: 
Hermaphrodites. Alan: Yes. Jackie: That's kind of how that's said, isn't it, because I remember 
when I read that I thought it was worded funny. Male and female made he them. Alan: If you 
look at the exact wording in the Greek and you have Imagio, which is the image. It means the 
perfect likeness, sameness in fact. Jackie: So in other words "the architect, " what would you call 
it? I mean a cloned body, is that what we're talking about, by a hermaphrodite? Alan: An exact 
duplicate of that particular deity and that's the symbol behind even occult Judaism and 
Catholicism and all the rest of them is a hermaphroditic figure. That's why you have two 


creations or beginnings of species. Not the first beginnings. They talk about regenerating the 
planet, which means to repopulate, but you have two beginnings where the deity creates male 
and female and then later on you look and it says there's no one to till the soil so he creates 
Adam and Eve. What they're talking about there is those that were made in the same image of 
the gods, if you like, the human gods, man and woman, are the upper elite group who will 
control the world; whereas the Adam and Eve types are the workers you see. It's a system that 
they're describing more than anything else, wrapped up in a story. It's a system" (Alan on the 
'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru April. 20 th 2005). 

Alan's idea that Adam was originally a hermaphrodite (made in the perfect image/sameness of 
the Creator) only works if the text tells us that God is a hermaphrodite. But it's clear that no 
such thing is ever put forth in Genesis (he's never portrayed in Genesis 1 as being a man or a 
woman, let alone a hermaphrodite)- in fact, Genesis 1 has God (Elohim) bringing the 
Universe/material reality into being, showing quite clearly that He is a timeless, non-spatial, 
immaterial entity. Rather than a body of any sort, in Genesis 1 God is shown to be more like a 
formless Mind (existing before physical reality/space & matter/energy even came into being). 
Obviously, "made in the image of God" should not be taken literally, but rather metaphorically. 
So what's the meaning of 'Imagio' in Gen. 1? Image is our English word, but in Hebrew it was 
called "made in the tselem of 'Elohim'". 

Here's what the ' Hebrew Strong Bible ' dictionary has to say about 'tselem' \ "H6754 - Q*?^ - 

tselem (tseh'-lem) - from an unused root meaning to shade; a phantom, that is, (figuratively) illusion, 
resemblance; hence a representative figure, especially an idol: - image, vain shew". 

From Wiki: "Man in "the image of God": the meaning of the "image of God" has been debated 
as to its precise meaning. The ancient Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria and the medieval Jewish 
scholar Rashi believed it referred to "a sort of conceptual archetype, model, or blueprint that God had 
previously made for man." His colleague Maimonides believed that it referred to man's free will . J — L " 
( of God) 

There aren't two separate creation events of humans in Gen 1 & 2. Gen 2. simply recounts the 
creation account of Gen 1. Perhaps they're called 'Man' and 'Woman' in Genesis 1 because it is 
from the perspective of God looking down upon the Earth, and in Genesis 2 'Adam' and 'Eve', 


because the perspective shifts to the Earth. Even God's name changes, going from Elohim 
('God') in Genesis 1 to Yahweh Elohim ('Lord God') (specifically at 2:4). But in the original 
Hebrew version, "Man" in Genesis 1 is called 'Adam', and when we get to Genesis 2 (which says 
the more personal name 'Adam' in the Greek/English text), it again only says 'Adam'. So in fact, 
within the original Hebrew Book of Genesis there was no 'Man/Adam' dichotomy that we have 
in the English version (i.e. where we see 'Man' in Genesis 1 and 'Adam' in Genesis 2), rather the 
Hebrew text just gives up 'Adam'/' Adam'. So if there's no difference of names in Genesis 1 & 2, 
then how can Alan justify his theory that 'Man' in Genesis 1 symbolizes the elites? and Adam in 
Genesis 2 the worker-slaves? Once again, if we just go back to the word or text in its original 
form and language, we see Alan's theosophical/Mystery Religion twists disappearing. Here's the 
spot in the text where it switches from the use of Man to Adam for the 1 st time: 

"Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make 
him an help meet for him. Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of 
the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call 
them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof". 

Here we can see exactly what Hebrew words used: 

"Gen 2:18 And the LORD H3068 God" 430 said," 559 It is not" 3808 good" 2896 that the man" 120 should 
be" 1961 alone; H905 I will make" 6213 him an help H5828 meet for him." 5048 Gen 2:19 And out of 4480 
the ground" 127 the LORD" 3068 God" 430 formed" 3335 every" 3605 beast" 2416 of the field," 7704 and 
every" 3605 fowl" 5775 of the air;" 8064 and brought" 935 them unto" 413 Adam" 121 to see" 7200 
what" 4100 he would call" 7121 them: and whatsoever" 3605 " 834 Adam" 121 called" 7121 every living" 2416 
creature," 5315 that" 1931 was the name" 8034 thereof. 

"H120 D7K - adam (aw-dawm)- from H119 ; ruddy, that is, a human being (an individual or 
the species, mankind, etc.): - X another, + hypocrite, + common sort, X low, man (mean, of low 

degree), person". H121 - D7K - 'adam (aw-dawm') - the same as H120 ; Adam, the name of 
the first man, also of a place in Palestine: - Adam". 

"Genesis 1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2; And the earth was 
without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God 
moved upon the face of the waters. 3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. 4; 
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness. 5; And 
God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning 
were the first day. 6: And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let 
it divide the waters from the waters. 7; And God made the firmament, and divided the waters 
which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was 
so. 8: And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the 
second day. 9: And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one 
place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. 10: And God called the dry land Earth; and the 
gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. 11: And God 


said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after 
his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 12: And the earth brought forth 
grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, 
after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 13: And the evening and the morning were the 
third day. 14: And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day 
from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years. 15: And let 
them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. 
16: And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule 
the night: he made the stars also. 17: And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give 
light upon the earth, 18: And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light 
from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19: And the evening and the morning were 
the fourth day. 20: And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature 
that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21: And 
God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought 
forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was 
good. 22: And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, 
and let fowl multiply in the earth. 23: And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. 24: 
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping 
thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. 25: And God made the beast of the 
earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth 
after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 26: And God said, Let us make man in our image, 
after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of 
the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth 
upon the earth. 27: So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he 
him; male and female created he them. 28: And God blessed them, and God said unto them, 
Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the 
fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the 
earth. 29: And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the 
face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it 
shall be for meat. 30: And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every 
thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for 
meat: and it was so. 31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very 
good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day". 

14) Alan on how the Old T. is the Masons beloved rule-book/manual etc.: 

"Alan: If you understand it, the Old Testament is the rules of the system for the illumined ones 
who run the world. They're hidden in allegorical form, where slavery is just okay and you can 
cheat and steal as long as you do it craftily, in fact your god will bless you, and stuff like that, if 
you understand the rules. The New Testament is the dialectic again, which makes a passive 
population obedient to the ones who run the Old Testament system and understand what it's all 


How can it be their rule-book? The Old T. is thoroughly anti-sun-worship/anti-Babylon. How 
does Jacob tricking his father into giving him the blessings demonstrate that Yahweh is bad? 
In the Old T, it's quite clear that Yahweh holds the Israelites to account for their backsliding and 
corrupt and immoral ways, like building temples to the Babylonian Mystery Religion Gods (as 
Solomon did) and sacrificing babies to them. Yahweh tells them many times within the Old T. 
that because they have failed to follow his moral rules, he will punish them, and based off 
Alan's recurrent description of 'the God of this World', one who bestows riches and material 
things of this world, the Old T's moralistic Yahweh cannot fit the bill. The Old T (the Pentateuch) 
is not a rule-book for "getting ahead in this world"- how could one get ahead in this world if 
one followed the Ten Commandments? Things which put moral restrictions on one's behavior 
and actions? The Pentateuch can be better characterized as a rule book for "getting to the next 
one": when God judges mankind at the end of the world and awards the righteous. And if one 
tried to counter with, 'there's another layer to the Bible, where esoteric rules are embedded 
within', then one will ask, 'specifically where?' Alan would say that Jacob cheating his Dad is in 
fact representative of those embedded themes, but Yahweh didn't condone it, and juxtaposed 
with the strict 10 Commandments, which prohibited stealing, lying, murdering, adultery, 
coveting- how are we to take Alan's claim? On the one hand, we have the nucleus of the Old T., 
the Yahweh-figure, telling the Israelites to be moral ("thou shalt"), and then we have Jacob 
acting immoral- so therefore, Judaism is immoral? Or if Alan tries to say that, 'no, Judaism is 
moral, but the hidden embedded themes (contained within scenes like Jacob cheating his Dad) 
give instructions to the Masons- then he's really reading between the lines. The Old T's Yahweh 
is moral and requires many "thou shalts", Aleister Crowley, who was a very high-Freemason, 
associated with the Order of the Dawn and the OTO wing of Freemasonry, steeped in the 
Mysteries and the roots of Masonry, wrote the opposite, "do what thou shalt". 
George W Chase's 1864 'Digest of Masonic Law' states: "Masonry has nothing whatever to do 
with the Bible is not founded upon the Bible, for if it were it would not be Masonry, it would 
be something else" - pg. 208 - 'Digest of Masonic Law: Being a Complete Code of Regulations, 
Decisions, and Opinions Upon Questions of Masonic Jurisprudence' by George W. Chase 
Editor of the Masonic Journal - New York - Macoy and Sickels Publishers - 1864). 
( http://books.googlexa/books?id=aYDUAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Chase%27s+%27Digest+of+Masonic 
+Law%27&source=bl&ots=Q5w MHiAyU&sig=JmWL6ofvnlZ0buWJvUfui7iiKeA&hl=en&ei=Za6STMLXBoSosQPZlsn 
kCQ&sa=X&oi=book result&ct=result&resnum=l&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false) 

Digest Of Masonic 

Lciw: Being A. 

Complete "Code Of 

Re^ulatioriSt Decisions 

And. Opinions Upon 

Questions OF Masonic: 


George Wingate Chase 


"Shep: Yes sir. I have a question and I'd like for you to expound on it a little further if you have 
the time. An earlier caller was talking about the Bible and it being an allegory, and you had said 
something about that it was a manual for the elite or something of that nature. I wonder if you 
could explain that a little further and also. ..Alan: You've got two minutes before the end of the 
show here. Shep: Okay, well I'll let you go. Thank you. Alan: You can't go into all that in the last 
little hop in the show, except if you look at some of the situations you're given in story form, 
such as the blessings bestowed upon Jacob— for what? For cheating his old dad and lying and 
getting the blessing. He was blessed for doing so because he did it craftily. I could go on and on 
and on, but you see it doesn't matter because people who are steeped into worshipping a 
particular form of a deity can't see anything but that form; they will never, ever see any other 
side of it. As I say, if you were to go outside of yourself and simply look at the same thing 
happening on a little Pacific island somewhere, and people slaughtering lots of animals and 
having a deity that smoked out of a volcano and loved the smell of burnt offerings in the 
morning and lots of blood, you'd be horrified. It's quite simple, but I won't even get into these 
debates because I'm long, way, way past that, way beyond all of that and I never really got into 
the trap of it, although I understood it more so than some of the people that actually taught the 
exoteric; it was rather easy to see the esoteric. That's why, as I say, there's a god of the world 
and those who serve the god of the world are well blessed by the things of the world, as they say 
in the higher lodges. Quite simple, but for those that follow such a deity, I don't even try to 
deprogram; it's not my place to deprogram them. If they're happy in it, it's no different than 
those who are happy in a television world where the regular soaps come on and keep them 
feeling comfortable, everything is normal, even though all hell could be breaking loose outside 

15) Alan on Noah and the meaning of the Book of Genesis: 

"Alan: Noah was chosen to come through with his family, and it tells you right at the beginning 
of the chapter, the only reason that he was picked was that he was perfect in his generations, 
meaning perfect in his bloodline. He had not married outside of his bloodline, so we're back to 
genetics again. Jackie: Sarah was Abraham's half-sister, according to the Old Testament, and 
Moses married his aunt. It was some family. Alan: It's a eugenics program really" (Alan on 
Jackie's 'Sweet Liberty' show Aug. 25 th 2004). 

"Alan: The reason Noah was supposedly picked was for one reason alone. Not because he was 
good or any different from anyone else but because he was perfect in his generation, in his 
inbreeding. That was the only reason he survived. We're looking at a eugenics program 
basically, and of course, aristocracy is nothing but a eugenics program. We worship kings and 
queens today because of their genealogical inbreeding" (Alan on Jackie's 'Sweet Liberty' show 
Aug. 30 th 2004). 

"Alan: The whole allegory of Noah is the same elite coming through another disaster and 
surviving and starting the mystery all over again of how you dominate the ordinary people. 
That's the reality of Noah. Noah was chosen to survive only because he had not out bred of his 


family lineage. He inbred only. He was perfect in his generations; so you have this elite coming 
through" (Alan on Jackie's 'Sweet Liberty' show Sept. 2 nd 2004). 

Alan is not telling the whole story, a close reading of Genesis 6 reveals how the Watchers/'Sons 
of God' came down to Earth, took wives from among "the daughters of men", giving rise to the 
race of beings known as 'the Nephelim' (the fallen ones), and they caused so much evil havoc 
and corruption of the human race and its bloodlines (not to mention, "sinning against animals"- 
genetically engineering various species?- from the 'Book of Jasher') that Yahweh flooded the 
Earth in a bid to destroy them all. Noah was saved b/c he was "a just man and perfect in his 
generations"- meaning he was Good (contrary to what Alan has claimed) and his bloodline was 
not contaminated (with Nephelim DNA perhaps?) (Gen: 6:9) (Gen: 6:4 also tells that some 
survived the Flood). Jackie said that Moses married his aunt, but nowhere can that be found. 
After Moses fled Egypt, he went to the land of Midian and married Zipporah (a daughter of a 
local priest)- and in Leviticus, Yahweh expressly forbids marrying one's Aunt. As far as Abraham 
marrying his half-sister goes, it's all about context (Genesis 20:12). Abraham lived over 500 
years supposedly before the Ten Commandments and the laws about incest were given to 
Moses, and he came from Mesopotamia, where marrying one's half-sister was normal. After 
seeing Leviticus' rules on marriage, the Gene-of-lsis theory fails. The Pharaohs & other kings & 
elites had always been into inbreeding, but not the ancient Israelites. 

Forbidden Marriages Within the Old Testament 

Between mother & son: Leviticus 18:7-8 (sexual relations between father & daughter are 
prohibited in Lev. 18:6 and 21:2-3). With stepchildren: Leviticus 18:8, 17. With an aunt: 
Leviticus 18:12-14. With sister or half-sister: Leviticus 18:9; Deut. 27:22. With half-sister and 
stepsisters: Leviticus 18:11. With daughter-in-law: Leviticus 18:15. With your sister-in-law: 
Leviticus 18:16. With your granddaughter: Leviticus 18:10. With your step-granddaughter: 
Leviticus 18:17 

G6n Oil: "And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and 

daughters were born unto them, Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that 
they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, 
My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an 
hundred and twenty years. Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after 
that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, 
the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that 
the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his 
heart was only evil continually. Gen 6:6 And it repented the LORD that he had made man on 
the earth, and it grieved him at his heart. Gen 6:7 And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom 
I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the 
fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them. Gen 6:8 But Noah found grace in 


the eyes of the LORD. Gen 6:9 These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a just man and 
perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God. Gen 6:10 And Noah begat three sons, 
Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Gen 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God, and the earth was 
filled with violence. Gen 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for 
all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. Gen 6:13 And God said unto Noah, The end of 
all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will 
destroy them with the earth". 

For the word 'just' in the KJV, the Hebrew version said: H6662 - p^lS; tsaddTyq (tsad-deek)- 
from H6663 ; just: -just, lawful, righteous (man). 

oen o.l And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the 
face H6440 of the earth, H127 and daughters H1323 were born H3205 unto them Gen 6:2 That the 
sons H1121 of God H430 saw H7200(H853) the daughters H1323 of men H12 ° that H3588 they H2007 were 
fair; H2896 and they took H3947 them wives H802 of all H4480 H3605 which H834 they chose. H977 
Gen 6:3 And the LORD H3068 said, H559 My spirit H7307 shall not H3808 always H5769 strive H1777 with 
man, H12 ° for that he H1931 also H7945 H1571 is flesh: H132 ° yet his days H3117 shall be H1961 an hundred H3967 

^„r\ +i*,™+w H6242 wn^r H8141 f* ~*+ CA Tknrn ia,^™ H1961 rr\ -» ^+c H5303 !« +■ k ^ ^r+k H776 !« + k^™ H1992 

and twenty years. Gen 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those 

^wr.- H3117 ^A ^lr^ H1571 ^f4-^K-H310 . . . H3651 %A# L^« H834 + U^ ^~c H1121 ~* r ~*I H430 ^r^r, i« H935 

days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in 
unto H413 the daughters H1323 of men, H12 ° and they bare H3205 children to them, the same H1992 

/ • u . H1368 i • i H834 r ■ ■ H4480 H5769 H376 r H8034 

became mighty men which were of old, men of renown. 

H5303 - VS2 bS2 - n e phiyl n e phil (nef-eel 1 , nef-eel) -from H53Q7; properly, a feller, that 
is, a bully or tyrant: - giant. 


Error#4 - Jesus the Man never existed and is a myth based off other 

ancient pagan deities/saviours = a lie (over 39 extra-biblical sources mention 
him- including Tacitus, whom Alan uses as a source). 

Here are 9 Alan-quotes on the topic, from 1998 (on Jackie's show) onwards to his own show in 2008: 

1) Jackie alluding to the 'Christ Myth' theory (that the Jesus-story was copied): 

"Jackie: We were talking last night and you were explaining about the virgin birth, starting with 
Nimrod, Semiramis, and Osiris and it occurred to me that our stories in the Bible of the birth, 
crucifixion, resurrection of Jesus and how it is identical to the stories down through the ages and 
I was feeling very disturbed that way, it takes nothing away from Jesus' gift to us" (pg. 73 
'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

If people actually research this stuff for themselves, or check out (they did an 
awesome job researching all of the alleged parallels by going through the ancient texts 
themselves)- they'd see that this Virgin birth idea is bullshit: Isis had sex with an artificial penis, 
Semiramis was the mother of all sex-cults and was called the 'whore of Babylon' in the Bible, 
and Krishna's mom was not a virgin either (he was the last of 8 children) 
( similarities.html ). 

2) Alan says that the Jesus-story was copied from earlier dying saviours: 

"Alan: Yes. There's no doubt that it was taken from (what resulted and what we've been given) 
the same story as Isis or Osiris, Osiris dies, is reborn as Horus and meets his father in heaven. 
The same story is Dionysus who was gored in the side by a boar and he's tended by his Mother 
Mer who is also his wife and he raises himself again, too. They put in the same dying 
resurrection as is found in every single one of the ancient mysteries. We find it with Saturn, in 
the name of Pluto being cast down in Flames, fighting his way back up to overcome the Sun. In 
the Persian he is called Shetan, which is Satan. Yes, they've definitely used the tools on all the 
old mysteries and gave it a new skin, like new wine" (pg. 66 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

Why not mention Nimrod / Semiramis, the first model? Horus does not meet his father in 
Heaven. Osiris never resurrected, or went to Heaven, he passed into the Underworld. Horus is 
just another aspect of Osiris, so if he did meet his Dad, he'd see him there (not in Heaven). If 
Dionysus is tended by his mother (also his wife), then why not mention Nimrod & Semiramis? 
(the first husband & wife/mother model?). 

3) Alan on how Jesus' name connects him to Apollo/the Mystery Religion: 


"Alan: "Jesus is a Greek term because the initial writers of the gospel wrote primarily in Greek 
and they had no problem by saying 'Son of Zeus, ' (Zeus, lesous), because they were familiar with 
the son of Zeus, Hesus. The other name is Apollo of course and Jesus is the sun. He is the sun" 
(Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru April. 13 th 2005).* 

From: The worm leading q&a sit* (j une 10 th 2010) (this was chosen as the best answer): 

"Does Jesus mean son of Zeus?: 'The name 'Jesus' means 'he who saves'. The other names of 
Jesus mean as follows: 'The Messiah' or 'The Christ' means 'The anointed one'; 'Emmanuel' 
means 'God with us' (referring to Jesus' divinity). The silly idea that Jesus means 'son of Zeus' is 
a result of bigoted idiots thinking that they know a great deal about scripture having read one 
or two bogus websites plus, perhaps, a Dan Brown novel.' Jesus' stems from the Greek word 
"lesous" which was a very loose translation of 'Yahshua'. The Greeks were obsessed with the 
gods, so it makes sense that in the Greek language, lesous translates to "son of Zeus". But this 
perverts the name of the Son of God into something less than what he is. He was NOT the son 
of an imaginary philandering lightning thrower. The real problem here is that we (as a Christian 
community) have used the translated Greek into our language. We SHOULD have translated the 
Hebrew and ignored the Greek name altogether. When the Angel spoke to Mary, it said His 
name would be "Yahshua". "Yahshua" is the name given from the throne of the I AM to his son. 
So, any name we call him should be translated off the original name, not a Greek perversion" 
( http://wiki.answers.eom/Q/Does iesus mean son of Zeus ) 

If he really existed, then what Alan is saying about Jesus being Apollo/the Sun is nothing but 
disconnected and contrived drivel. His original name in Aramaic was 'Yeshua', and when his 
followers wrote the Greek New T. Gospels they had to translate it into Greek (the Gospels were 
specifically written in Greek because it was the main written language of its day, and the 
Christians were intentionally breaking themselves away from Judaism (now their persecutors) 
and trying to spread their message to the Gentiles). Yes, 'Zeus' is the word for 'God' in the 
Greek world, and yes, 'Apollo' is the son of Zeus, in other words, 'the Son of God', and also the 
Sun-God- but when 'Yeshua' was translated into Greek, it also became 'the Son of God' (which 
is 'lesous'- 'Jesus')- aka. 'Son of Zeus'. So sure, Apollo is the Son of God (Zeus)- but what does 
that have to do with Yeshua? a real historical character? Yeshua was not the Sun, but a flesh- 
and-blood guy, one who outrageously claimed that he was the Son of God, and got executed for 
it. But the similarities end there. Some theorists (and Alan) have actually said that Jesus is the 
'Si//V because he's the *Son\ otherwise known as the Jesus-is-the-Son=Sun-equation, but that 
trick only works for English (everything disappears if we just go back to the word's original 
Aramaic form). The Aramaic 'Yeshua' properly translates as 'God saves' (Ya = God), the Hebrew 


term 'Messiah' translates as 'the Anointed one', and of course, in Greek the 'Anointed one' is 

4) Alan on how Jesus, Moses, and Jacob were all celestial and never existed: 

"Alan: "The people in the Bible are all allegories for different things that happened within 
nature, including the movements of the Zodiac. The 12 tribes are simply the 12 constellations. 
Moses was the Sun going through them. Same with Jacob. The same with Jesus in fact. It's the 
same story given out for the exoteric rendition for the people and the esoteric for the 
priesthood". George: "You don't think those individuals existed? They were all celestial?" Alan: 
"All celestial" ( Alan on the 'George Noorv Show' April 10 th 2006 ). 

How does one explain the sudden rise of Christianity, especially winning Jewish converts in 
Jerusalem, if Jesus never even existed? If he didn't exist, then neither did Pontius Pilate, Herod, 
John the Baptist, the 12 Apostles, Joseph of Arimathea, contemporary Roman, Greek, and 
Judean historians, the writers of the 4 Gospels, the persecution/killing of 3-4 million Christians 
by the Roman Empire before it collapsed and formed the Holy Church. 

5) Alan on his '1998 lecture series regarding Jesus and his connection to the Mystery Religion'; 
& how the Old T. and New T. are antithetical to each other: 

"Rick: Hello. I want to know about Jesus and his relation to freemasonry. I've been enjoying your 
excellent ancient history and religion lectures but it's not clear whether Jesus was an agent of 
the freemasons or was he acting against them? Alan: What we do know is that regardless and 
really that's all we can go by is what we know, not suspect. However, we do know that Bibles 
have always been rewritten down through history. Even the first one that was compiled as an 
official Bible by the Vaticaness version, which even the New Testament from the King James' 
was copied from with more alterations. Each one has had alterations to try and keep the power 
into the right authorities' hands and make the people obey. So there's very little you can go by 
because all holy books have been given out for political purposes down through the ages, and 
we know that King James and his court were Rosicrucian, the precursor of what they now call 
"freemasonry" and they did put an awful lot of symbolism in there. However, most of the 
freemasonry you'll find is taken from the Old Testament. Even the system that we live in is 
contained within the Old Testament and the rules for those that want to succeed above all other 
peoples. Slavery is okay. Being very cunning and breaking the rules is okay as long as you get 
away with it and you do it craftily, and so Jacob fools his own father and gets the blessing. So 
it's all the rules of getting ahead in this system contained within the Old Testament primarily. 
The New Testament is almost the antithesis of the old. The old one is a godfather, a mafia type 
deity which could be very benevolent or ruthless and sometimes very moody like a drunken 
father after a hangover the next morning. They were never quite sure if he's going to hit you or 
hug you. The New Testament has a god of forgiveness and a personal god that you could talk to, 
so there are two opposing systems, because the New Testament was brought in with a lot of 
Greek Gnosticism brought into it from the deists and from the stoics from Greece. The old 


mystery religions are contained within the New Testament if you compare them with the old 
philosophies of Greece and ancient Egypt, whereas you've got a personal journey towards 
higher levels of consciousness and manifesting into a form of god hood; but, unfortunately, the 
ones that are alive today and believe in this they think they can be gods or they're still walking 
around and no mortal can handle god hood because we've got too many flaws. I hope that helps 
answer your question. Rick: Yes, thank you so much" (ALAN WATT "CUTTING THROUGH THE 
ANOTHER, BETTER WAY" August 27, 2007). 

Exo 21:16: "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, 
he shall surely be put to death". Again, there is no passage that shows Yahweh 
supported slavery. Alan would have us believe that the Mystery Religion's Gnostic 
and theosophical undertones are contained within the New Testament, but he 
doesn't tell us where. In the end, everything comes down to an interpretation of the 
text (and remember, we're not arguing about if Yahweh or Lucifer really exist, but 
rather if the text supports the theosophical view). But if one finds a plethora of 
specific passages blasting the Mystery Religion and Theosophy within the Bible- 
then what should one conclude? If we're going to tip the scale the other way and 
stipulate that the Mystery Religion spawned the Bible, and implanted within it 
esoteric themes, then we need to see some clear textual proof. The only thing 
Gnostic/theosophical in the Bible is the Serpent's promise of wisdom and God-hood 
in Genesis 3, but the text castigates it as causing the Fall and separating Mankind 
from God. Theosophy is all about knowledge, but already in Genesis 3, one can see a 
foundational theme of knowledge vs. faith emerging. Alan would respond that the 
theosophical themes are there, but in allegorical form, for instance, Moses going up 
the mountain alone to speak with the "I am". Alan incessantly says that the story of 
Moses going up the Mountain to speak with the burning bush represents the 
process of the initiate going away from the profane and achieving illumination/self- 
God-hood- therefore, Moses never even existed (he also repeatedly says that 
Solomon's temple is just an allegory for the rebuilding of the perfect Man/rising into 
God-hood, so therefore, Solomon never existed either). But that's his view, and he's 
obviously reading between the lines, and how does that notion square with all the 
new archaeological evidence confirming that there was a 10 th Century Israelite 
kingdom?) No doubt Freemasons say "I am", but it is theosophical to its core, and 
stands for their ascension into becoming Gods themselves (this is why they love 
their checkered floor as it denotes how (like Gods) they can do anything without 
restriction). Moses never gained knowledge from God, but moral laws, and he 
didn't keep them to himself, but rather shared it with the profane down below. To 
make Moses into the Illumined Man of Theosophy/the Mystery Religion requires 
some reading between the lines and twisting of the text, but most importantly, the 
assumption that he never existed and was a Mystery Religion myth. 

6) A caller asks Alan for sources on the Jesus-and-other-pagan-deities-parallels: 


"Chris: Hey Alan? Alan: Yes. Go ahead. Chris: Good to talk to you man. I just wanted to put a 
plug in for your books, very, very interesting, very quality material. I got your second book and 
ready to go with that and it's very good. Alan: It's different for sure. Chris: Oh definitely different 
and it's like you said it really makes you think. You were just talking about how fantasy is the 
natural thing and I think like the name of the game with these elites is to take everything good 
and co-op it and turn it around and use it and incorporate it into their system. I think like 
Christianity is one thing that they've done and perverted and twisted around, and I wanted to 
ask you specifically about - you talk about the Christianity being a continuum of the sun god 
and that sort of thing. My question is: where is the source material for this? because I tried to 
research and find out more about it and I know there's that Zeitgeist movie that's out and it 
seems to be they're using some nefarious sources. 

They quote Masons and Peter Fricke and Frank Gandy and their work, and those authors you 
can't find where they cite any kind of source material. I don't understand where 's - 1 guess my 
question is: Where's the source material? Where are the actual texts that they're going off of for 
these ideas? Alan: You can go into the other Holy Books and it's true you'll find the sameness, 
not similarities but sameness to do with the main hero. It's also in the wording. See, books are 
books. They're not holy. The message is holy and it's perverted when you start worshiping the 
book. Your perception changes from the message, which is important, to believing everything 
that's written in that book. Once you believe the book is holy, you don't realize it's getting 
changed with every publication. It's been altered and you still think it's holy and that was the 
trick of course they've played down through the ages, even when they wrote it by hand and put 
them in the temples of Alexandria and other places. It wasn't the only place. Alexandria was 
only one of many and they all had copies of the same handwritten scripts, so nothing was ever 
lost. However, we know that in the coding of the Bible itself, if you read them, you'll always find 
the God is the 'most high God. ' Now the 'most-high God' is the sun; and when he's at mid- 
summer he's at the highest, he's the 'most high God. ' They have all these terms there and if you 
look into the original, and you can still get them from Britain, the original books of the King 
James' Bible, you'll find the introduction by the printers promoting the book and giving praise to 
King James and it says right in there, "to the Most High. You are the Sun. " S-U-N. It also calls him 
a Sion. It's got all that terminology in there and the previous queen was called that Occidental 
Star, so it's full of coding for those who understand it. In Ancient Egypt, they used to have 10 
symbols of the zodiac and they had the sun who went through the 10 symbols. Later, in 
Ptolemy's day they put it up to 12 symbols; and the zodiac has always changed too, because 
even the ecliptic that we go around, this wobble the earth has, has brought in extra 
constellations that weren't there before, so even the wobble of the earth wasn't always the 
same. Chris: I've tried to find the parallels. Alan: You can only find them by going through the 
actual books looking at the stories of the hero figure, the terms that he's called, the miracles 
that he does and how many disciples he has round him. It's always the same. They die at mid- 
winter because the sun dies, technically speaking. It goes east to the south. It can't go back up 
to the west again and set and so that's the death. That's mid-winter and the three days of 


hanging. Chris: I know what you're saying but I don't see those - 1 mean in the Christian religion 
I understand there's 12 disciples and when you're talking about this occult knowledge and the 
more I look into it they have allegories and symbols for just about every animal, every number, 
so you could basically overlay that with just about anything and get a kind of a meaning - that's 
kind of what I see now. Alan: What there is, you see, if it's trying to justify a belief, then that's 
called faith and you understand there's no amount of proof or evidence or logic that's going to 
change that, because faith isn't founded upon provable fact. That's why it's called faith. Chris: 
Right, but I'm asking for sources. Alan: Go into the comparative religion books, especially the 
older ones - they had an awful lot of really good big thick ones, hundred of pages that were sold 
at the beginning of the 1900's. You'll pay a fair dollar for them but that's your fastest way to get 
to the actual parts that you want to find. Chris: Do you have any material that you produce 
yourself that goes into this more? Alan: Not too much more, because it's all been done before. 
It's all been done before and really it's up to the individual as I say to seek out comparative 
religions especially the older books. Chris: I'm looking but I just don't see anything. I mean I see 
they say that Horus and Osiris are parallels of Jesus. Alan: See the thing is what you're looking 
at is right in front of your face. It's right in front of your face. The oldest legends you have are 
about Nimrod and his wife Semiramis and then the sun became Tammuz; and you have the 
same story with Osiris and his wife Isis, who is always his sister or wife, and the sun Horus again. 
Chris: They were born of a virgin? Alan: It's all the same stories. It's over and over again and 
that cannot be denied. It cannot be denied. Chris: The only problem is where' s the citations? I 
know that there's - 1 mean we have that material, the writings of The Book of the Dead and so 
on and so forth, but why don't they go ahead and let that stuff out and they're clearly wanting 
to get beyond Christianity and get to this new worldly religion. Why do they put people out like 
Fricke and Gandy and these people who don't cite sources, I don't understand that. Alan: They'll 
do it at the right time. At the moment, America who has had the heaviest dose of religion for a 
purpose, eventually America, the U.S. 's function will be over and all that was hidden will be 
revealed and you'll find a whole bunch of books will be given out to the public then with all of 
the data that you're looking for, if you cannot find it yourself. It is there. I mean you can't deny 
similarity after similarity and I won't get into religious disputes because it's a waste of time. It's 
a waste of time, but if you can't see the similarities, it is available in comparative religious 
studies. Chris: Yes, I'm looking but I just haven't - 1 mean I keep hitting dead ends and I'm 
looking at this stuff and they're saying well this is paralleling and-Alan: Look into comparative 
religions but spend the bucks on the old books. Spend the dollars on the old books and you'll 
have to do the work to go through them, because it's really yourself that you're going to have to 
convince. The battle is inside yourself you see. Chris: Yes. Alan: Thanks for calling" - (ALAN WATT 

The caller had a great point, how Zeitgeist (which is clearly trying to topple Christianity and has 
the full force of theosophy & Masonry behind it) doesn't even have the correct data, and has 
left itself open for utter and total debunking. If Zeitgeist could of, they would of, meaning: if 
they had some smoking gun on Christianity that could demolish it, then why release crappy 
documentaries that do the reverse? 


7a) Alan on how Jesus the Man never existed and was a myth; the caller asks for proof from 
Alan and names historians like Tacitus, but Alan dismisses him as unreliable (despite using 
him as a source for some of his own ideas): 

"Alan: Now I've got Jeff from Texas. Are you there, Jeff? Hello. Jeff: Hi Alan. I have a comment 
and a question. I'm new to your material and I've been trying to catch up by listening to your 
archive interviews. I really appreciate your efforts to expose the history of the New World Order 
over the last 1,000 years, but it seems that when it comes to the subject of classical or ancient 
history your claims get really outrageous and I was shocked to hear on your George Noory Coast 
to Coast interview that you claimed that Jesus never existed and that the 12 tribes-Alan: I'm 
not going into a biblical discussion or debate with people's beliefs here, okay? Number one, you 
know yourself there's been many, many people before, sun gods, who die for the world as the 
sun does every day. You know the mother is always a virgin. You know all this stuff. I don't have 
to explain this to you. Jeff: No. I'm talking about the primary historical record. Alan: I'm not 
going to go into what a belief is about. It's a belief system. That's why it's called a belief system. 
It's not fact. It's a belief system, which is based on faith, right? It's faith-belief based. Jeff: Am I 
cut off here? Alan: No, not yet. Jeff: Okay. Alan: But I'm not going to go into a debate about 
your belief system. Jeff: Can I talk? Can I say something? Alan: Go ahead. Jeff: I'm talking about 
the actual annals of Rome. I'm talking about the writings of Tacitus. I'm talking about Lucian of 
Samosata. I'm talking about Joseph us. Alan: We also know that a lot of that stuff was re- 
doctored many centuries later, and that's another thing you see. They doctored them in the 
Vatican. We know that. Jeff: No. The annals of Tacitus were not doctored by the Vatican. Alan: 
What you're trying to get at is to justify what you believe in and that's where religion belongs, is 
what you want to believe. There's enough evidence pro and con to keep the battle going on 
forever. That's why it boils down to faith for the individual believer. Jeff: No Alan. Do you have 
specific proof t hat-Alan: Okay. We'll go on to the next one because this is going to be an 
argument. I know it. Hello. Who are we on to no? Rick from California. Are you there, Rick?" 
DRASTIC DEPOPULATION" January 9, 2008). 

From : "Tacitus was a Roman 
historian writing early in the 2nd century A.D. His Annals provide us with a single reference to 
Jesus of considerable value. Rather frustratingly, much of his work has been lost, including a 
work which covers the years 29-32, where the trial of Jesus would have been had he recorded 
it. [Meie.MarJ, 89] Here is a full quote of the cite of our concern, from Annals 15.44. Jesus and 
the Christians are mentioned in an account of how the Emperor Nero went after Christians in 
order to draw attention away from himself after Rome's fire of 64 AD: "But not all the relief that 
could come from man, not all the bounties that the prince could bestow, nor all the atonements 
which could be presented to the gods, availed to relieve Nero from the infamy of being believed 
to have ordered the conflagration, the fire of Rome. Hence to suppress the rumor, he falsely 
charged with the guilt, and punished Christians, who were hated for their enormities. Christus, 
the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator ofJudea in the reign of 
Tiberius: but the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time broke out again, not only through 


Judea, where the mischief originated, but through the city of Rome also, where all things 
hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. 
Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an 
immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred 
against mankind". 

Here Tacitus conveys himself as a proper historian as he has no qualms mentioning that Nero 
was believed to have started the great fire of Rome (false-flag terrorism). As he pulls no 
punches and calls Christianity a " pernicious superstition" , Tacitus' portrayal of Jesus doesn't 
lend itself to the notion that it has been doctored by the early Catholic Church. If it had been 
edited, then why wasn't it changed in such a way as to validate Christianity? But though he 
denounces it, Tacitus still acknowledges the historical existence of Jesus the Man. So what was 
the Catholic Church trying to do if they doctored this passage? Get us to believe that he 
existed? For nothing else is stated about him by Tacitus other than his existence and death 
(how Pontius Pilate the Roman Governor of Judea had him executed). Nothing about him being 
the Son of God, a great man etc. Historical and archaeological evidence have confirmed the 
existence of Pontius Pilate, so if we add that to Tacitus' Jesus-account, and to all the other 
references given by ancient Greek, Roman, and Jewish historians regarding Jesus the Man, as 
well as the Jewish attestation to his existence within the Babylonian Talmud (but seen as an 
enemy of Israel)- how can one then not be justified in inferring that he existed? Did the Catholic 
Church doctor the Babylonian Talmud? All those passages from ancient historians? such as Pliny 
the Younger, Lucian of Samosata, Seutonius? Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, and Thalus? 
Celsus, Josephus, Hegessipus, and Mara-Bar Serapion? (too name a few). Alan tells us that 
Tacitus has been tampered with, but yet he wants us to accept him at other times, when he 
uses him to back up his story of how the elite Druids survived some kind of massive catastrophe 
by tunneling into the mountains in ancient times. 

7b) Alan uses Tacitus as a source: 

"Alan: There are powers at play in this world which have perfected the systems of deception 
prior to Sumer and I've no doubt they had much more advanced civilizations at one point 
according to their own histories of the Druids and the historian Tacitus who took some of the 
legends of the Druids and they survived previous ages by living inside mountains during floods 
and ice ages 11 (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru Jul. 6 th 2005). 

"Alan: That's it, yes, and as I say, they planned it such a long time ago. I don't think it's the first 
time it's happened and the Hindus say that we go through these phases you might say of birth, 
living and then destruction. These are called "ages" and of course in the legends of all peoples 
we have these world disaster periods, floods and earthquakes and so on. Even in Sumer, in the 
Sumerian tablets, they claim that prior to their coming into existence, their city, there had been 
catastrophes on the earth where old continents had sunk and new ones had arisen from the sea. 
Jackie: That they created? Alan: It's possible. If you go into the writings of Tacitus, who wrote 


for Nero, he talked to the Druids in Britain and they claim that they had records of three 
previous ages, maybe 125,000 years apart, and that the survivors and the high priests of course, 
always the nobility-Jackie: They do survive, don't they? Alan: Yes. They tunneled into 
mountains and took provisions in to live for long periods; and that tallies with the records of 
Greece, where their priesthood tunneled into Mt. Parnassus and claimed the same thing that 
they survived the disasters" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru April. 27 th 
2005: Watt on Sweet Liberty Apr272 

8) Alan on Jesus being a myth; another caller asks for proof and tells him that J.P Holding's 
'Shattering the Christ Myth' and have debunked him: 

"Lucas: I think you answered my question on that. I have another question Alan. I would like to 
know why it is you can't seem to answer any questions when it comes to your stance on Jesus 
being a mythical figure. Alan: Because I could spend about two months giving you history 
lessons, including the exoteric, long before the Christian version. I could give you the esoteric 
and the exoteric. I won't do it because-Lucas: Well you don't seem to have any proof. I mean 
that's what it's come down to is you can't prove anything. That's why you don't want to talk 
about it. Alan: Belief and faith boils down-Lucas: It's not about faith. It's about the historical 
record. Alan: Let me speak here. Lucas: And that's what Jeff was talking about before you cut 
him off. Alan: No, no. That guy has been bugging me for a few weeks here with emails and 
everything. Lucas: I know he's a persistent fellow. Alan: Look, I told him I don't need - and he 
should be quite happy with that - him, to force me to go along with his belief. Lucas: I don't 
think he's forcing you. He's just asking you where the proof is. Alan: He hasn't read [Plotinus] or 
any of the other authors, I'm sure, that go into all the pre-Christian sons of God and their virgin 
mothers. Lucas: Yeah, but that's already been debunked by various people, try J.P Holding and Alan: Aaah yeah, the fact is, why should I waste my time? Okay. Enough of these 
characters with their attacks here because it's just a waste of time and they can't even get to 
the point. I mean the point is, if it's a tolerant society, why are they so eager to make you 
believe what they want to believe? I mean faith is something you can't verify one way or 
another anyway. That's why it comes down to faith and belief. Otherwise it's fact, so let's go on. 
Now we've got Alex from Toronto. Are you there, Alex?" (ALAN WATT "CUTTING THROUGH THE 
DECEITFUL GUISE" January 11, 2008). 

9) Alan on having a 'belief in Jesus (he says it cannot be grounded upon any objective basis, 
on history etc., but will always remain a subjective belief): 

"Brianne: Well, I'm going to order your books but I just had one last question. What do you 
think about Jesus? Was he real? Alan: It's only up to the individual to figure that out. You see, 
any truth or reality or experience can only be valid to the person who has it. Otherwise, you're 


taking something on someone else's word and that's why they call it faith, then you have faith 
that they're telling the truth. Any experience from anything or any reality has to only make 
sense to you as an individual. Brianne: Yes. So I guess all you can really know is what you see 
with your eyes-Alan: And what you experience in life. Brianne: I see. Alan: Thanks for calling" 
(Feb 18th 2008 - Cutting Through the Matrix). 

He tells us that it's up to us subjectively if we want to believe in the existence of Jesus, as if we 
can never truly objectively know- but why cannot one make a judgment based on the historical 
record? If historians can infer that Caligula existed because of written records, then why not the 
same with Jesus? who has more records testifying to his historical existence than any Roman 
emperor? Many a' time, Alan has told us about characters and events from history where we 
have scant written material to go from, but then when we get to Jesus of Nazareth, who has 
over 39-extra-biblical sources mentioning him- he wants us to believe that we're not warranted 
in inferring that he was a real historical character? Of course, on the other hand, Alan is allowed 
to tell people about his non-existence, without any evidence other than debunked astro- 
theology, and as if it is some kind of objective historical fact, and not a belief of his. Alan has 
specifically said on his show and others that Jesus the Man never existed, however, other times 
on his own show he has spoken about Jesus as if he did exist (saying, 'he was a guy that stood 
up to the bankers and got killed for it'). But if on other occasions, and especially on other shows 
(like the very popular George Noory Show), he said he never existed- then what is one to make 
of all of it? which statements does Alan stand by? (as both are antithetical with each other, it 
has to be existence or non-existence). To put it all into perspective, what if someone told you 
that Alexander the Great did this or that, and then other times said he never even existed and 
was just an astro-theological myth- what would you think? You'd probably ask for clarification, 
which a caller did to Alan, and he responded quite clearly, 'he never existed'. Another caller 
asked Alan for specific sources, and he responded, 'check out the comparative religion books 
done at the turn of the century 1 (but that new discipline within religious studies was called 
'comparative' for a reason, namely, their modus operandi was drawing parallels (but that era of 
scholarship has been left to the wayside (as we'll see in a bit)). So is Alan telling us his own 
belief or an objective historical fact? (according to his logic, one is treading upon faith if one 
doesn't have evidence for something they believe). Because this subject is dealing with one of 
the most scrutinized periods of Western Civilization, where texts abound from ancient 
historians concerning Jesus, the onus is on Alan to at least show us a little evidence. Without 
any, we have to take everything he says as ultimately just him venting out a belief fed on faith. 

■fc=s i t — - '— I I =£- apry Ti ~^P3?3B3 

Was Jesus a real historical character? 





hrist Myth 

'Shattering the Christ Myth' by J.P Holding: 

Instead of using the Bible to prove the existence of Jesus, we will turn to actual ancient 
historians. has compiled and analyzed over 15 solid quotes from various Roman, 
Greek, and Jewish historians that have specifically referenced Jesus the Man (I'll include 5). 
They do a brilliant job raising and dealing with skeptic objections, making it clear that these 
historians believed he existed, and were not reporting on myths or fables. Jesus being a myth 
based off earlier 'saviors', like Horus, Mithras, Dionysus etc. has been thoroughly debunked by (and of course resides upon the presupposition that he never even existed), but 
we'll get into that after we've first established the existence and historicity of Jesus the Man: 

Tacitus (55-120AD), Clemet of Rome (98AD), Ignatius of Antioch (100 AD), Seutonius (69- 
130AD), Thalus (52 AD), Pliny the Younger (63-113AD), Celsus (178AD), Mara-Bar Serapion 
(70AD), Lucian of Samosata (120-180AD), Quadratus of Athens (126 AD), Aristides the 
Athenian (126 AD), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 AD), Hegesippus (110 AD - 180 AD), Josephus (37- 
100 AD) 

From (The Historicity of Jesus: Did he Exist?): history.html 

Dr. William Lane Craig on the Jewish historian Josephus (from 'On Guard' by - 2010 - pg. 228): 

"His principal works ore o history of the Jewish Revolt and a history of the Jewish people entitled 
'Antiquities of the Jews'. In this latter work he mentions Jesus of Nazareth twice, as well as 


Jesus' brother James, John the Baptist, Caiaphas, Pilate and other persons mentioned in the 

From "Flavius Josephus (37-100 A.D.): Josephus was a first century pharisee 
and historian of both priestly and royal ancestry who provided important insight into first-century 
Judaism. Josephus was born only three years after the crucifixion of Jesus, making him a credible witness 
to the historicity of Jesus. "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a 
man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He 
drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the 
principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not 
forsake him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day" - Antiquities 
XVIII, 3.3 Skeptic interjection: Could this passage have been altered or interpolated by early Christian 
authors? Answer: Some think this passage is a complete interpolation while some believe the passage is 
authentic. However, the general consensus among scholars is that Josephus most likely made some sort 
of mention to Jesus but that original text became distorted over time. Because this passage is a source 
of great debate, we will touch on a few arguments presented by both sides: 

ARGUMENTS FOR AUTHENTICITY: 1: The vocabulary found in the Testimonium is 
consistent with the vocabulary used in other passages in Antiquities. The phrase Now about this time is 
used at the beginning of this passage as well dozens of other passages. It's also doubtful a Christian 
forger would have referred to Jesus as simply a wise man but then go on to assert claims of His divinity. 
Yet, Josephus uses this word to refer to many other notable (and purely human) figures. Josephus also 
uses the description of Jesus' miracles as wonderful [astonishing, surprising] works. Lastly, Josephus 
refers to Christianity as a tribe- just like he does many other times in reference to both major and minor 
sects. 2: Once the disputed words (printed in regular font in the above passage) are removed, Josephus' 
though process flows just as well. This lends credence to the possibility the passage wasn't wholly 
interpolated but perhaps altered. When we omit the disputed words, the passage seems consistent with 
what an orthodox Jew would say concerning Jesus: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, 
for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew 
over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the 
principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not 
forsake him. And the tribes of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day. " 3: Greek and 
Arabic translations of the Testimonium contain disclaimers preceding the suspicious declarations such as 
"Jesus who was believed to be the Christ" and "It has been reported that He appeared to them alive 
again on the third day. " If anything, this could lead to the speculation that Christian authors did not add 
to the text but edited it by deleting the disclaimers! 4: The earliest versions of Antiquities contain the 
passage as it is presented above. Objection: The earliest surviving copy dates from 10th century A.D. 
(plenty of time from the publication of Antiquities to alter or interpolate the passage). Answer: This is 
true. We do not have an extant copy of Antiquities dating from before 10th century A.D. What we do 
have however, is several citations of this passage by other authors prior to the 10th 
century). 5: Many defenders of the Testimonium's authenticity speculate that if it had been wholly 
interpolated by a Christian, they most likely would have inserted the passage next to the John the 


Baptist references. Though I understand their reasoning, I feel this argument isbased on conjecture 
instead of evidence. The alleged Christian forger could have had just as much reason to insert this 
passage next to the John passage, the Pilate passage, or the James passage. 

ARGUMENTS AGAINST AUTHENTICITY: 1: This passage seems to interrupt the continuity of Josephus' 
thought process in the previous and subsequent verses. Answer: Interruptions are frequently found in 
Josephus' works since he composed his histories during different sittings. Furthermore, Josephus was 
known to use the assistance of scribes during his writings which could easily resolve this issue. 2: The 
passage contains proclamations an orthodox Jew would not make such as Jesus being the Christ. 
Answer: In other translations (Greek and Arabic) the suspicious statements contain disclaimers such as 
"Jesus who was believed to be the Christ" and "It has been reported... " This presents the theory 
Josephus was recording the beliefs regarding Jesus and not necessarily his personal opinion (as a 
responsible historian should do). 3: Early Christian authors like Origen and Justin Martyr do not mention 
this passage in their writings. Answer: I'm not sure what the motive is behind this objection because 
Origen does reference the other passage by Josephus yet critics claim the reference is "too late" to be 
reliable! But, for argument's sake if we assume this passage did exist in the form most scholars believe it 
did, the early church fathers might not have felt the need to refer to it. The [original?] passage serves as 
evidence for the historicity of Jesus- a topic not hotly debated at this point as the burden of proof 
revolved around His divinity. Objection: Origen attests to the historicity of John the Baptist in his work 
Contra Celsus when it wasn't even being debated. He could have cited this passage too. Answer: In 
Origen's Contra Celsus the divinity of Jesus was being debated- not his existence. Though Josephus 
allegedly admits to Jesus performing miracles, he does not state how. It would have made no sense for 
Origen to cite the Testimonium since it doesn't either dispute or confirm Celsus' claims. Furthermore, 
even if the original Antiquities still existed in Josephus' own handwriting, critics would say he either 
drew his information from Christian sources or was to late to be considered reliable! 4: Josephus' Jewish 
Wars also contains this passage so it must be a forgery. Answer: This is false- the Testimonium is not 
found in the Jewish Wars. To the contrary- Skeptics criticize that the Testimonium is not found in The 
Wars but should have been ! 5: Josephus should have written more regarding Jesus if the passage was 
genuine. Answer: What topic or how much an author writes about a topic is their prerogative. Also, 
since Josephus believed Jesus was just another messianic pretender and false prophet, it would have 
made little sense for Josephus to have written volumes concerning His life and actions. It would be 
similar to a modern a Christian author exhaustively recording the life of Jim Jones or David Koresh. 
Josephus most likely held Jesus in the same regard and felt he warranted little mention. After weighing 
the evidence for myself, I personally agree with the consensus of scholars that Josephus did make 
some mention of Jesus in this passage but that the text was later altered. Because opinions differ so 
greatly, I will leave the final conclusion up to the reader. For a more in-depth discussion on this topic, I 
suggest reading this non-biased article which details both sides of the on-going debate (although this 
author believes the passage was wholly interpolated). We'll now examine the second passage given to 
us by Josephus. Fortunately, it is not surrounded in as much controversy!: 

Josephus: "Ananus) assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so- 
called Christ, whose name was James. .." - Antiquities 20.9.1 Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible this 


passage was interpolated by early Christians? Answer: It must be noted that no copy of Antiquities has 
ever surfaced without the above text quoted as it is above. Critics are suspicious of the so-colled Christ 
statement yet this reference (rather than the Christ) shows Josephus was not condoning the belief but 
simply documenting it. Also, this passage concerns the actions of the priest Ananus- Jesus and James 
were not even the primary focus of this verse! Lastly, this passage is cited in other early works which 
attests to its authenticity. Even if we dismiss the disputed words in Josephus' Testimonium, we still see 
he testifies to a number of things in the above two passages: 1) Jesus lived in the first century 2) He 
performed wonderful works (miracles) 3) Some believed Jesus to be the Christ 4) He was a teacher 5) He 
had many followers 6) He was tried by Pilate 7) He was crucified 8) He was the founder of Christianity 9) 
James was the brother of Jesus". 

From left to right: Jospehus and Tacitus 

CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived 
through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of 
ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who 
governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius. "Christus, the founder of the [Christian] 
name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the 
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the 
mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also. " Annals XV t 44 What this passage reveals and 
how it confirms the Biblical account: 1) Jesus did exist 2) Jesus was the founder of Christianity 3) Jesus 
was put to death by Pilate 4) Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus) 5) Christianity later spread to 
Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists). Skeptic Interjection: Could Tacitus have taken his 
information from Christian sources? Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not 
as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus referenced government records over Christian testimony. It is 
also possible Tacitus received some of his information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny 
the Younger. Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to 
have done so without critical investigation. An example of Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even 
from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55 . Tacitus distinguishes between confirmed and 
hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of Jesus was only a rumor or 


folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified. Skeptic Interjection: 
Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation? Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of 
the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as a superstition and insuppressible 
mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does not contain this 
passage. There is no verifiable evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage. Skeptic Interjection: 
Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers? Answer: Due to the condescending nature 
of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not have quoted such a source (assuming 
Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual answer comes from the content of 
the passage itself. Nothing in Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was not already common 
knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus' existence (a topic not debated at this 
point in history) and not his divinity. Skeptic Interjection: Does the incorrect use of title procurator 
instead of prefect negate Tacitus' reliability? Answer: No. Evidence is provided in both secular and 
Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator: "But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea... 
Antiquities XVIII, 3:l ."Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius..." The Jewish 
Wars, Book II 9:2 . "Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..." First Apology 
XII . It has been suggested by both Christian and secular scholars that Tacitus was either using an 
anachronism for the sake of clarity or, since Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate 
might have held both positions. 

From left to right: Pliny the Younger, Seutonius, and Lucian of Samosata 

PLINY THE YOUNGER (63 - 113 A.D): Pliny the Younger admits to torturing and executing Christians 
who refused to deny Christ. Those who denied the charges were spared and ordered to exalt the Roman 
gods and curse the name of Christ. Pliny addresses his concerns to Emperor Trajan that too many 
citizens were being killed for their refusal to deny their faith: "/ asked them directly if they were 
Christians. ..those who persisted, I ordered away... Those who denied they were or ever had been 
Christians. ..worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to 
gather on a stated day before dawn and sing to Christ as if he were a god... All the more I believed it 
necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were called deaconesses, by 
means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped 
the examination, and hastened to consult you. ..on account of the number of people endangered. For 


many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger... " Pliny's letter to Emperor 
Trajan. Though Pliny states some of the accused denied the charges, a recurring theme in the 
correspondence between Pliny and Trajan is the willingness of the true believer to die for Christ. This 
would hardly be reasonable if they knew He never existed! Skeptic Interjection: How does dying for 
one's belief verify the actual existence of Jesus? The sincerity of a belief does not necessarily make the 
belief true. How does this passage specifically confirm a historical Jesus and not just the existence of 
Christians in Rome? Answer: Pliny states the Christians worshiped Christ as if he were a god. This 
indicates one who would not normally be considered a god, such as a human who was exalted to divine 
status. Also, the early Christians would have been in the position to know if Jesus was a historical figure 
or not. Though critics can claim these martyrs took Jesus' existence solely on faith, common sense tells 
us there would have been a lot more evidence of a historical Jesus at this time than what has been 
preserved until today. According to early historians, Jesus' great-nephews and other relatives were still 
alive as well as the associates of the original apostles. Such individuals could easily verify His existence. 
Also, documents which have been lost to us were still in existence (such as Jesus' trial records and the 
census records of His birth) and were even referenced by early authors who wrote about Jesus. These 
individuals had every reason to be certain of Jesus' existence and were willing to die because of it. 
Skeptic Interjection: Pliny also states some recanted their testimony. Perhaps they did so because they 
knew Jesus was a myth. Answer: There are several rational explanations as to why some would recant 
their Christian beliefs: 1) Pliny readily admits to torturing some of the accused (are admissions/denials 
really credible under torture!?) 2) The accused knew if they did not recant they would be put to death 
(fallible human rationalization: confess and go home [and work out the hard feelings with Jesus later] or 
suffer crucifixion?) 3) Some of the accused could have been lackadaisical Christians who half-heartedly 
accepted Christianity because of a spouse, parent, or friend (and would have had no problem reverting 
back to paganism upon facing persecution). There were half-hearted Christians 2,000 years ago just like 
there are half-hearted Christians today 4) New Christians may have recanted to escape persecution if 
they were not familiar with or did not understand the severity of Jesus' warning regarding those who 
deny their Christian beliefs) 5) The correspondence between Pliny and Trajan implies many of the 
accused were being turned in falsely by their enemies. Some were never Christians to begin with while 
some had already left the faith prior to their interrogation 6) Just because there were some who may 
have recanted out of fear or poor judgment doesn't dismiss the deaths of the other individuals who 
were certain of Jesus' existence and died because of their knowledge. 

GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.) Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian 
who recorded the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He 
served as a court official under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial House. Suetonius records the 
expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome (mentioned in Acts 18:2 ) and confirms the Christian faith 
being founded by Christ. "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, 
[Claudius] expelled them from Rome." Skeptic Interjection: Because Suetonius misspells Christus as 
Chrestus, is it possible he was referring to someone else? Answer: Because Chrestus was an actual Greek 
name, critics speculate Suetonius may have been referring to a specific civil agitator. I would like to 
present a few arguments as to why I feel this is a reference to Jesus. In order to get as close to the 
author's intent as possible, this is the passage as it exists in the original Latin: "ludaeos (The Jews) 


impulsore (the instigation) Chresto (Chrestus) assidue (upon) tumultuantis 

(making a disturbance) Roma (Rome) expulit (were expelled)." 1) Suetonius seems to imply the word 
Chrestus as a title- not as a reference to a particular rebel. Though I have seen critics cite the passage as 
"a certain/one Chrestus" we can see this is incorrect by the lack of the word quodam in the original 
Latin. 2) Suetonius uses the word instigation- not instigator. The Latin word referring to an instigator is 
impulsor but the term referring to an instigation is impusore- and this is the word Suetonius uses, thus 
affirming the belief he is using the word Chrestus as a title and not as a name. 3) It was common for both 
pagan and Christian authors to spell the name using either an e or an /- and we know the Christian 
authors were obviously referring to Jesus when they spelled the name as Chrestus. 4) Tertullian criticises 
pagan disdain for Christianity and points out the fact they can't even spell the name correctly. He implies 
the common misspelling of Chrestus by their use of the term Chrestians: "Most people so blindly knock 
their heads against the hatred of the Christian name. ..It is wrongly pronounced by you as "Chrestians" 
(for you do not even know accurately the name you hate)... But the special ground of dislike to the sect 
is, that it bears the name of its Founder. "Apology, Chapter III . 5) We also see Justin Martyr (a Christian 
apologist, nonetheless!) using the incorrect spelling of Chrestian. First Apology IV 6) Lactantius repeats 
the lament of Tertullian with his statement, "But the meaning of this name must be set forth, on account 
of the error of the ignorant who by the change of a letter are accustomed to call Him Chrestus. " Fathers 
of the Third and Fourth Centuries . 7) Chrestus was a Greco-Roman slave name but Suetonius tells us 
"foreigners" were not allowed to adopt such names. Knowing the Jews were a close-knit community, the 
idea of them following the revolt of a gentile slave to such an extent to get them (and only them!) 
expelled from Rome is quite a stretch. Skeptic Interjection: How could this passage refer to Jesus. He 
was never said to have travelled to Rome. Answer: If Chrestus does refer to a title and not a specific 
name (as we are asserting), there is no need for Him to have been in Rome. A leader can still be "an 
instigator" for a cause without being in the vicinity. There are many causes that survived long after the 
lives of those who initiated certain movements. 

LUCIAN OF SAMOSATA (120 - ~180 A.D.) Lucian was a second century Greek satirist and rhetorician 
who scornfully describes his views of early Christianity. Though he ridicules the Christians and their 
Christ, his writings confirm Jesus was executed via crucifixion and that He was the founder of 
Christianity: "The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day- the distinguished personage who 
introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account... It was impressed on them by their 
original lawgiver that they are all brothers from the moment they are converted and deny the gods of 
Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws... " The Death of Peregrinus 11-13 What 
this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account: 1) Jesus did exist 2) Jesus was the 
founder of Christianity 3) Jesus was worshiped by His followers 4) Jesus suffered death by crucifixion. 
Skeptic Interjection: Can we consider Lucian's testimony reliable due to the source being a literary 
work? Answer: Lucian's commentary revolved around historical events. In Lucian's work The Way to 
Write History, he openly criticises his contemporaries who distort history to flatter their masters or 
those who fill in the historical gaps with personal conjecture: "The historian's one task is to tell the thing 
as it happened... He may nurse some private dislikes, but he will attach far more importance to the public 
good, and set the truth high above his hate... For history, I say again, has this and only this for its own. If 


a man will start upon it, he must sacrifice to no God but Truth. He must neglect all else. " The Way to 
Write History Skeptic Interjection: Is it possible Lucian received his knowledge from Christian sources or 
that this passage is an interpolation? Answer: Seeing how adamant Lucian was in regards to historical 
accuracy and critical investigation, our answer is an emphatic no. As to the passage being a Christian 
interpolation, chances are the reference to Jesus would be far more favorable if this were so. Lucian 
refers to Jesus only as a man, a lawgiver, and a sage (human- not divine- descriptions). He never once 
refers to Jesus as a God. Furthermore, there isn't anything in the above statement that reveals what 
wasn't already known- it merely asserts that Jesus lived, preached, and died. Remember, at this time 
Christians were trying to prove Jesus' divinity- not His existence. 

Was Jesus a Myth Based off Other Gods? 

Let's address what Alan said about 'comparative religion books' at the turn of the century 
containing the truth, and then we'll look at a few of the alleged similarities (Horus, Krishna, & 
Buddha,) go to: similarities.html 

Here's one the world's most respected Christian philosophers, Dr. William Lane Craig, on the 
'comparative-religion-bent at the turn of the century' (he holds two PhD's and is arguably the 
greatest debater in the English-speaking philosophical world since World War 2 (his debating 
resume is unbelievably impressive, and he easily made mince-meat of Christopher Hitchens 
when debating the existence of God at Biola University in 2007): "It has been suggested that the 
idea of Jesus' resurrection could have originated through the influence of pagan mythology. 
Back around the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth century, scholars in comparative religion 
collected parallels to Christian beliefs in other religious movements, and some thought to 
explain Christian beliefs, including the belief in Jesus' resurrection, as the result of the influence 
of such myths. The movement soon collapsed, however, principally due to two factors: First, 
scholars came to realize that the parallels are false. The ancient world was a virtual fruit basket 
of various gods and heroes. Comparative studies in religion require sensitivity to their 
similarities and differences, or distortion and confusion inevitably result. Unfortunately, those 
who were eager to find parallels to Jesus ' resurrection failed to exercise such sensitivity. Many of 
the alleged parallels are actually stories of the assumption of the hero into heaven (Hercules, 
Romulus). Others are disappearance stories, which claim that the hero has vanished into a 
higher sphere (Apollonius ofTyana, Empedocles). Still others are seasonal symbols for the crop- 
cycle, as the vegetation dies in the dry season and comes back to life in the rainy season 
(Tarn muz, Osiris, Adonis). Some are political expressions of emperor worship (Julius Caesar, 
Caesar Augustus). None of these is parallel to the Jewish idea of the resurrection of the dead. 
Indeed, most scholars have come to doubt whether, properly speaking, there really were any 
myths of dying and rising gods at all. For example, in the myth of Osiris, which was one of the 


best-known symbolic seasonal myths, Osiris doesn't really come back to life but simply continues 
to exist in the realm of the departed. In general scholars have come to realize that pagan 
mythology is simply the wrong interpretative context for understanding Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus 
and his disciples were first-century Israelite Jews, and it is against that background that they 
must be understood. The collapse of the alleged parallels is just one indication that pagan 
mythology is the wrong interpretative context for understanding the disciples' belief in Jesus' 
resurrection. Second, there's no causal connection between pagan myths and the origin of the 
disciples' belief in Jesus' resurrection. Jews were familiar with the seasonal deities (Ezek. 37:1- 
14) and found them abhorrent. Therefore, there's no trace of cults of dying and rising gods in 
first-century Israel. In any case it's highly unlikely that the original disciples would have come up 
with the idea that Jesus of Nazareth was risen from the dead because they had heard pagan 
myths about dying and rising seasonal gods. Contemporary scholars have therefore abandoned 
this approach" ("On Guard' by Dr. William Lane Craig - 2010 - pg. 247-249) 

From (I'll include 3 of the alleged parallels & their Conclusion) 

"in this section, we will investigate the alleged similarities between Jesus and other deities which leave 
critics speculating aspects of Jesus' life were borrowed from other figures of antiquity. After examining 
the actual texts of the religions in question most similarities will be found to not even exist but to have 
been fabricated by authors who prey upon the reader's ignorance of foreign religions. The outline for 
this discussion is as follows: 1) Introduction 2) Cautions of Discernment 3) Krishna 4) Buddha 5) Horus 6) 
Zoroaster 7) Mithras 8) Attis 9) Dionysus-Bacchus 10) Alleged Crucified Deities 11) Conclusion. If you 
search the web for similarities between Jesus and pagan deities, you will be met with countless results 
presenting the same erroneous material which provide no original religious sources to validate their 
claims. However, if you search the religious texts of the figures in question you will be presented with 
straightforward information that reveals the claim that the story of Jesus was stolen from pagan myths 
to be utterly false. For the reader's convenience, I supply links throughout this discussion to the original 
religious texts so you can see for yourself that the "Pagan Copycat Theory" has been completely 
fabricated"." Skeptic Interjection: But these figures existed before the alleged life of Jesus. 


Chronology alone makes this entire discussion pointless. Answer: An important fact to keep in mind 
while reading this section is the approximate 300 detailed Messianic prophecies regarding the life, 
death, and ministry of Jesus in the Old Testament. The prophecies span approximately 450 to 1,500 
years before His birth. The accusation of Christians plagiarizing the accounts of other figures in the first 
century ignores the fact that concepts such as the virgin birth, the resurrection, and a Father-Son, 
relationship precede most figures in this article. Also, many of the religious texts containing the figures 
and the alleged similarities claimed by critics postdate the completion of the Christian Bible. Most 
religious texts concerning these figures were added to over the centuries, with aspects of their lives 
becoming more spectacular and suspiciously similar to Christianity. An important difference between 
Jesus and the other figures in this article is the existence of verifiable facts surrounding Jesus' life: we 
know the approximate year of His birth and death, numerous records exist which verify His existence, 
accurate historical events that occurred around His lifetime are mentioned in the Christian texts, and we 
can trace the origins of the Judeo-Christian beliefs. Most other figures in question have no documented 
point of origin and mention no dates or approximate dates as to when the alleged events occurred. 
Regardless, since we will show the copycat claims to be false, the argument of who came first shows 
itself to be irrelevant. Skeptic Interjection: How does the mention of historical events prove the 
accuracy of the Bible? Many authors of fiction incorporate real people or places into their works to give 
the plot a feeling of reality. How is the Bible different? Answer: Historical accuracy alone is not proof of 
the Bible's inerrancy but it does attest to its reliability. If the Bible only mentioned spurious locations 
and people like many of the pagan texts do, it would certainly detract from its authenticity". 

Horus : According to Egyptian mythology, Horus, was originally believed to be the son of Ra and Hathor 
and the husband/brother of Isis. Later he was seen as the son of Osiris and Isis once Hathor and Isis 
were merged into one being. Horus was considered the sky, sun, and moon god represented by a man 
with the head of falcon. 

VIRGIN BIRTH There are two separate birth accounts in regards to Horus (neither depict a virgin birth): 
Version 1: Hathor, the motherly personification of the milky way, is said to have conceived Horus but we 
are told her husband, Ra, was an Egyptian sun god. Hathor (a sky goddess) was represented by the cow 
whose milk brought forth the milky way. By the will of her husband Ra, she gave birth to Horus: "I, 
Hathor of Thebes, mistress of the goddesses, to grant to him a coming forth into the presence [of the 
god]. ..Hathor of Thebes, who was incarnate in the form of a cow and a woman. " Source and Source. 
Version 2: When we examine Isis as Horus' mother, we are told Isis was not a virgin, but the widow of 
Osiris. Isis practices magic to raise Osiris from the dead so she can bear a son that would avenge his 
death. Isis then becomes pregnant from the sperm of her deceased husband. Again, no virgin birth 
occurs: "[Isis] made to rise up the helpless members [penis] of him whose heart was at rest, she drew 
from him his essence [sperm], and she made therefrom an heir [Horus]. " Source 



J ON dec.: 





EGYPT- 3000 BC 

THE FATHER AND SON UNITY Critics suggest the Christian trinity was adapted from the notion of Osiris, 
Ra, and Horus being one god in essence. Because Horus was born after the death of Osiris, it came to be 
believed he was the resurrection, or reincarnation, of Osiris: 

"He avengeth thee in his name of 'Horus, the son who avenged his father. " Source. Throughout the 
centuries, the Egyptians eventually considered Osiris and Horus as one and the same. However, this son- 
as-the-father comparison more closely resembles the metamorphosis of Hathor into Isis than it does the 
Christian trinity. We see Horus first as the son of Ra, then being the equivalent of Ra, then Ra finally 
becoming just as aspect of Horus. Similar to Hathor and Isis, we simply see a merger of one being into 
another. In Egyptian mythology, each god had a distinct beginning by being conceived from other gods. 
In Christian theology, God and Jesus always existed as one and the same, neither having a beginning or 
an end. Jesus' birth did not represent His creation- only His advent in human from. Furthermore, the 
father-son concept was not created by first-century Christians. Prophecies in the Old Testament referred 
to the future Messiah as the Son of God up to 1,000 years before the birth of Christ. I Chronicles 17:13- 

CRUCIFIXION AND RESURRECTION Horus is never said to have been crucified, nevertheless to have 
died. The only connection we can make to Horus being resurrected is if we consider the eventual merger 
of Horus and Osiris. But such a theory results in an catch 22, apparently noticed by the Egyptians as they 
later altered their beliefs to fix the contradictions. In the Egyptian tale, Osiris is either dismembered by 
Set in battle or sealed in a chest and drowned in the Nile. Isis then pieces Osiris' body back together and 
resurrects Osiris to conceive an heir that will avenge Osiris' death (although technically Osiris is never 
actually resurrected as he is forbidden to return to the world of the living). Source and Source. "[Set] 
brought a shapely and decorated chest, which he had caused to be made according to the measurements 
of the king's body... Set proclaimed that he would gift the chest unto him whose body fitted its 
proportions with exactness... Then Osiris came forward. He lay down within the chest, and he filled it in 
every part. But dearly was his triumph won in that dark hour which was his doom. Ere he could raise his 
body, the evil followers of Set sprang suddenly forward and shut down the lid, which they nailed fast and 
soldered with lead. So the richly decorated chest became the coffin of the good king Osiris, from whom 
departed the breath of life. " Source 


BORN ON THE 25TH OF DECEMBER Horns' birth was actually celebrated during the month of Khoiak, 
(October/November). Though some critics claim Horus was born during the winter solstice, this shows 
more of a relationship to other pagan religions which considered the solstices sacred. 

TWELVE DISCIPLES Superficially this similarity seems accurate until we see Horus' "disciples" were not 
disciples at all- they were the twelve signs of the zodiac which became associated with Horus, a sky god. 
However Jesus' disciples were actual men who lived and died, whose writings exist to this day, and 
whose lives are recorded by historians. Because Horus' "disciples" were merely signs of the zodiac, they 
never taught his philosophy or spread his teachings. The fact that there are twelve signs of the zodiac 
(twelve months) as compared to Jesus' twelve apostles is an insignificant coincidence. 

MOUNTAINTOP ENCOUNTER Critics point out the similarity of both Jesus and Horus having an 
encounter on a mountaintop with their enemies. Instead of dissecting this piece by piece, I will simply 
give each version of events and let the reader observe the (obvious) differences: 
Jesus: After Jesus completes His fast in the wilderness, Satan tries to tempt Jesus by offering Him all the 
kingdoms of the world if Jesus agrees to worship him, but Jesus refuses. Matthew 4:1-11. Horus: During 
battle, Horus rips off one of Set's testicles while Set (sometimes called Seth) gorges out Horus' eye. Set 
later tries to prove his dominance by initiating intercourse with Horus. Horus catches Set's semen in his 
hand and throws it into a nearby river. Horus later masturbates and spreads his semen over lettuce 
which Set consumes. Both Set and Horus stand before the gods to proclaim their right to rule Egypt. 
When Set claims dominance over Horus, his semen is found in the river. When Horus' dominance is 
considered, his semen is found within Set so Horus is granted rule over Egypt: 

"O that castrated one! O this man! O he who hurries him who hurries, among you two! These- this first 
corporation of the company of the justified... Was born before the eye of Horus was plucked out, before 
the testicles of Set were torn away. " Source "It is the day on which Horus fought with Set, who cast filth 
in the face of Horus, and when Horus destroyed the powers of Set. " Source "Then [Set] appeared before 
the divine council and claimed the throne. But the gods gave judgment that Horus was the rightful king, 
and he established his power in the land of Egypt, and became a wise and strong ruler like to his father 
Osiris. " Source Skeptic Interjection: Does the similarity between the names Set and Satan hold any 
significance? Answer: Set's variant names include Seth, Sutekh, Setesh, and Seteh. The root Set is usually 
considered to translate into dazzler or stable pillar. The different suffixes of his name add the meanings 
majestic, supreme, and desert. The name Satan comes from the Semitic root Stn which represents 
opposition. Before his fall, Satan's original name was Lucifer, or angel of light. The term Satan represents 
a general adversary, hence his accepted 

identity. Though both names consist of an 5 and a T, their meanings have nothing in common. The 
spellings are only a result of the original root words which represent their character. Source and Source 

SIMILAR TITLES Critics allege Horus held similar titles used to identify Jesus such as Messiah, Savior, Son 
of Man, Good Shepherd, Lamb of God, The Way, the Truth, the Light, and Living Word. However I can 
find no evidence of any of these names ever being used in reference to Horus. I am especially suspicious 


of the word Messiah since it is Hebrew in origin. 

IN CONCLUSION We can see the differences between Jesus and Horus far outweigh any superficial 

Krishna : "In Hinduism, Krishna, is believed to be the eighth avatar of Vishnu, the second aspect of the 
Hindu trinity. Almost every correlation between Krishna and Jesus can be traced to Kersey Graves, a 
19th century author who believed Christianity was created from pagan myths. Though his works have 
been proven by scholars to be false and poorly researched ( Source ), many still ignorantly refer to his 
arguments not knowing they are easily disproved by simply comparing the Bible to the Hindu texts. 

THE DEFINITION OF KRISHNA Although many critics allege Krishna means Christ, Krishna in Sanskrit 
actually translates as Black (One) as Krishna was believed to have blackish-blue skin. The word Christ 
literally translates as Anointed One. When skeptics, in turn, spell Krishna as Chrishna or Christna, this is 
a blatant attempt to spread more misinformation and reinforce their erroneous theories. 

A VIRGIN BIRTH A virgin birth is never attributed to Krishna as his parents bore seven previous children. 
Furthermore, the virgin birth was not a new concept invented by Christians. The book of Isaiah (written 
about 700 B.C.) spoke of a Messiah who would be born of a virgin. This prophecy was in circulation 700 
years before Jesus and at least 100 years before Krishna. ( Isaiah 7:14 ) Critics claim Krishna was born to 
the virgin Maia but according to Hindu texts, he was the eighth son of Princess Devaki and her husband 
Vasudeva : "You have been born of the divine Devaki and Vasudeva for the protection of Brahma on 
earth. " Mahabharata Bkl2,XLVIII 

INFANT MASSACRE Critics claim a tyrannical ruler issued a decree to kill all infant males prior to 
Krishna's birth but the Hindu legend states Devaki's six previous children were murdered by her cousin, 
King Kamsa, due to a prophecy foretelling his death at the hands of one of her children. Unlike Herod 


who issued a decree to slaughter all the males under two years old, the Hindu version tells us Kamsa 
only targeted Devaki's sons. He never issued a decree to indiscriminately kill male infants: "Thus the six 
sons were born to Devaki and Kamsa, too, killed those six sons consecutively as they were born. " 
Bhagavata, Bk4,XXII:7 

PARENTS FLEE Critics claim while Krishna's parents fled to Mathura to avoid Kamsa, Jesus' parents fled 
to Muturea to avoid Herod. But the Bible tells us Mary and Joseph fled to Egypt- not to some unknown 
place called Muturea. Furthermore, the Hindu texts tell us Krishna's parents never had a chance to flee- 
they were imprisoned by Kamsa so he could kill Krishna once he was born: What faults had [Vasudeva] 
and his wife Devaki committed? Why did Kamsa kill the six infant sons of Devaki? And for what reason 
did [Vishnu] incarnate Himself as the son of Vasudeva in the prison house of Kamsa? Bhagavata, Bk4, 
1:4-5 and Source 

SHEPHERDS, WISEMEN, A STAR, AND A MANGER No mention of shepherds or wisemen appear at 
Krishna's birth. Krishna was born in a prison (not a stable as critics suggest) where his parents bore him 
in secret. It is unlikely such visitors would arrive only to alert Kamsa to Krishna's presence! 

CARPENTER FATHERS Like Jesus' earthly father, Krishna's father was also said to be a carpenter. Yet 
nowhere in the Hindu texts does it say Vasudeva was a carpenter. In fact, we are told he was a 
nobleman in the courts of Mathura as he was married to Princess Devaki. When Krishna fled the wrath 
of Kamsa with his foster parents, we are told his foster-father Nanda was a cow-herd: "Thou art the 
most beloved of Nanda, the Cow-herd" Bhagavata, Bk 8, 1, pg 743 

THE CRUCIFIXION Though critics claim Krishna was crucified, this is mentioned nowhere within the 
Hindu texts. Instead, we are told exactly how he dies: Krishna is mediating in the woods when he is 
accidentally shot in the foot by a hunter's arrow. Skeptics really try to streeetch this one by claiming the 
arrow that shot Krishna impaled him to a tree, thus crucifying him. They also point out the similarity 
between his wound being in the foot and Jesus' pierced hands and feet. However, if I was carving my 
initials into a tree and accidentally impaled my wrist, the idea of saying I was crucified would be absurd. 
This story relates more to the death of Greek mythology's Achilles than anything else: "A fierce hunter of 
the name ofJara then came there, desirous of deer. The hunter, mistaking [Krishna], who was stretched 

on the earth in high Yoga, for a deer, pierced him at the heel with a shaft and quickly came to 
that spot for capturing his prey. " Mahabharata, Book 16, 4 

THE RESURRECTION Although critics claim Krishna descended into the grave for three days and 
appeared to many witnesses, no evidence of this exists whatsoever. Instead, the actual account says 
Krishna immediately returns to life and speaks only to the hunter by forgiving him of his actions: "He 
[the hunter] touched the feet of [Krishna]. The high-souled one comforted him and then ascended 
upwards, filling the entire welkin with splendour... [Krishna] reached his own inconceivable region. " 
Mahabharata, Book 16, 4 Some obvious differences between the resurrections of Jesus and Krishna are 
as follows: 


Jesus' resurrection defeated the power of sin and death. Krishna's resurrection had no real 
affect on mankind. 

Jesus appeared to approximately 500 eye witnesses in the New Testament. Krishna appeared 
only to the hunter. 

Jesus rose from the dead three days later. Krishna immediately returned to life. 

Jesus did not ascend into Heaven until after the Great Commission. Krishna immediately 
"ascended" into the afterlife. 

Jesus was aware of what was to take place. Krishna had no foreknowledge concerning his death. 

Jesus ascended into a physical realm (Heaven). Krishna transcended into a mental state (or 
inconceivable region). The concepts between Heaven (Christianity) and Nirvana (Hinduism) differ 

THE LAST SUPPER Krishna is said to have celebrated a last supper but two reasons offer evidence this 
event never occurred: 

1. There is no mention of Krishna having a last supper celebration in any of the Hindu texts. 

2. Because Krishna had no foreknowledge of his death, there is no reason he would have 
celebrated such an event! 

DEPICTED AS BRUISING THE SERPENT'S HEAD Genesis 3:15 is a metaphorical Messianic prophecy which 
refers to Jesus' spiritual battle with Satan. Though critics claim Krishna was also referred to as the seed 
of the woman bruising the serpent's head, this phrase is never used as a reference to Krishna. The only 
thing that occurs is a literal battle Krishna encounters with actual serpents. Mahabharata, Bk7, LXXXI 
and Mahabharata Book 8, XC 


• Krishna was the human incarnation of Vishnu. This appears to be somewhat accurate but the 
actual Hindu triad consists of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma. Not Vishnu, Krishna, and a spirit deity. 

• Krishna was of royal birth. (While Krishna was directly born into the noble court of Mathura, 
Jesus was from the royal Davidian line but born into poverty under the parentage of Mary and 

• Krishna was seen as a Savior. (While Jesus was an eternal-spiritual savior who saved His people 
from damnation, Krishna was an earthly-warrior savior who freed his people from the tyrannical 
reign of Kamsa). 

• Krishna often fasted in the wilderness. The only possible reference I could find to any such thing 
was that he often retreated into the forest to meditate. 


• Krishna was born in a cave. Actually, neither Jesus nor Krishna were born in caves. Krishna was 
born in a prison cell and the only reference to Jesus being born in a cave is in noncanonical 

• Krishna lived a sinless life. Whereas the Bible makes it clear Jesus committed no sin during His 
lifetime, The Hindu texts admit to Krishna's promiscuity and numerous sexual affairs. 


• Krishna was born on December 25th. Actually, Krishna's birthday celebration, known as the 

Janmaashtami, is celebrated in the Hindu month of Bhadrapadha which corresponds to the 
month of August. Furthermore, it is unlikely Jesus was born on this date. Christmas is only 
celebrated on this date due to tradition. 

• Krishna moved a small mountain to protect a village from disaster. Jesus states if you had faith 
as a mustard seed you would say to the mountain uproot yourself and be cast into the ocean. 
Other than the 

concept of moving mountains, anyone can see that these two statements have nothing essential 
in common. One describes a physical feat while the other uses moving a mountain as a metaphor 
to the power of faith. 

CONCLUSION The Hindu texts have admittedly been altered and added to over the centuries. Many 
comparisons of the newer and older texts regarding the story of Krishna reveal many tales being added 
in later texts known as the Puranas (400-1000 A.D.), Bhagavata (400-1000 A.D.), and the Harivamsa, 
(100-1000 A.D.). These texts have been proven by scholars to have been written after the life of Jesus. 
Skeptical Interjection: According to Hindu tradition, the Bhagavata Purana is believed to have been 
written by Vyasa in about 3100 BC. It mentions the Vedic Sarasvati River about 30 times which was 
believed to be dried up around 2000 B.C. Answer: This is often cited as an argument for an earlier date 
of the Bhagavata. However it does not hold up for many reasons. The fact that the Bhagavata Purana 
mentions the non-extant Vedic Sarasvati River is no more proof of an early date of authorship than it 
would prove an ancient date of authorship if I were to write a novel centering around the Hanging 
Gardens of Babylon. The mention of the ancient river proves nothing more than the knowledge of its 
historical existence. There is also no record of any of these texts existing prior to the first century A.D. 
Even when the older Hindu texts were in circulation, the books regarding many details about Krishna's 
life were not included. Finally, the language and grammar of the Bhagavata Purana is not consistent with 

the more ancient languages of India". 

Gautama: Gautama is believed to have lived between 563 - 483 B.C. Gautama was born into the 
warrior class under the caste system of India and later achieved enlightenment to become the Buddha 


(or enlightened one) and founder of Buddhism. Like Zoroaster (below), very little was written about him 
during his lifetime, with the accounts becoming more incredible over time. 

VIRGIN BIRTH Gautama was born to Suddhodana and his wife of twenty years, Maya . Though critics 
claim Maya was a virgin, we must assume she was not as she was the king's favorite wife. Also, The A cts 
of the Buddha acknowledges Maya and Suddhodana as having sexual relations (the two tasted of love's 
delight...), though I feel it is fair to point out most English translations do not contain this statement. A 
detailed account of Gautama's birth may be found here . Though Maya is portrayed as being virtuous 
and pure-minded, a virgin conception is never mentioned regarding the birth of the Buddha. At the very 
most, it was a womb transference as in the story of Krishna: The most Excellent of all Bodhisattvasfell 
directly from his place among the residents ofTushita heaven, and streaking through the three worlds, 
suddenly took the form of a huge six-tusked elephant as white as Himalaya, and entered Maya's womb. 
Buddha Karita 1:18 Skeptic Interjection: Does the resemblance between the names Maya and Mary 
hold any significance? Answer: Though similar in their English translations, their original forms and 
translations are completely different. Maya, from Sanskrit, means Illusion whereas Mary (Maryam) 
translates from Hebrew as Bitter. 

WISEMEN I could find no mention of wisemen in any Buddhist text but I did find the following in Post- 
Chrisitan writings: Version 1: An ascetic (not wisemen) visits the king to relay the information he 
received from the gods that his child will become a great religious leader. After hearing this, Brahmans 
(not wisemen) decide to dedicate their sons depending on the outcome of the prophecy. "A son has 
been born in the family of Suddhodana the king. Thirty-five years from now he will become a 
Buddha... Whether the young prince become a Buddha or a king, we will each one give a son: so that if he 
become a Buddha, he shall be followed and surrounded by monks of the warrior caste; and if he become 
a king, by nobles of the warrior caste. " Jataka 1:55,57 . Version 2: At Gautama's birth, a seer (not 
wisemen) tells Suddhodana that Gautama will become a great religious leader: "The great seer came to 
the palace of the king. 'Thy son has been born for the sake of supreme knowledge. Having forsaken his 
kingdom, indifferent to all worldly objects, he will shine forth as a sun of knowledge to destroy the 
darkness in the world. '" Buddha-Karita 1:54,62,74 

PRESENTED WITH GOLD, FRANKINCENSE, AND MYRRH Again, I find no mention of such an occurrence 
except for a far-fetched correlation in a Post-Christian writing. We are told the gods (not wisemen) 
presented Gautama with sandalwood, rain, water lilies, and lotus flowers (Buddhist symbols). This 
should come as no surprise as royal births are often celebrated with festivals and gifts! "As soon as he 
was born the thousand-eyed one took him gently, bright like a golden pillar. Two pure streams of water 
fell from heaven upon his head with piles of Mandara flowers. The yaksha-lords stood round guarding 
him with golden lotuses in their hands. The great dragons gazed with eyes of intent devotion, and fanned 
him and strewed Mandara flowers over him. And from a cloudless sky there fell a showerful! of lotuses 
and water-lilies, and perfumed with sandalwood. " Buddha Karita 1:27,36,38,40 

GUIDED BY A STAR There is no mention of a celestial sign but I did find far-fetched similarities in Post- 
Christian texts: Version 1: The Brahmans look for signs of the Buddha on Gautama to determine if he 


will be a king or religious leader. The signs do not imply celestial omens but physical markings a Buddha 
would have: "They asked [the Brahmans] to observe the marks and characteristics of the Future 
Buddha's person, and to prophesy his fortune. If a man possessing such marks and characteristics 
continue in the household life, he becomes a Universal Monarch. If he retire from the world, he becomes 
a Buddha. " Jataka 1:56 . Version 2: Though the gods sent miraculous signs through nature, the 
appearance of a star is never said to have guided the prophet. However, we are told precisely what the 
signs are: "Two streams of water bursting from heaven, bright as the moon's rays, having the power of 
heat and cold, fell down upon that peerless one's benign head to give refreshment to his body... The gods 
held up a white umbrella in the sky and muttered the highest blessings on his supreme wisdom... Then 
having learned by signs and through the power of his penances this birth of him who was to destroy all 
birth, the great seer Asita came to the palace of the king. Thus the great seer beheld the king's son with 
wonder, his foot marked with a wheel, his fingers and toes webbed, with a circle of hair between his 
eyebrows, and signs of vigour like an elephant. " Buddha Karita 1:35,37,5465 

DECEMBER 25TH Gautama's birth is actually celebrated in the spring month of Vesak by his followers 
(though we have already shown this date to be insignificant for Jesus). 

ATTEMPT ON HIS LIFE BY AN EVIL KING There is no mention of an attempt on Gautama's life. The only 
thing we are told is his kingly father tries to persuade him away from a life of religious servitude by 
attempting to entice him with royal privileges. When the prophet tells the king his son will see four signs 
leading to his religious calling, the king orders guards to surround the child to prevent such an event. 
Source "Then said the king, 'What shall my son see to make him retire from the world?' 'The four signs. ' 
'What four?' 'A decrepit old man, a diseased man, a dead man, and a monk. ' 'From this time forth, ' said 
the king, 'let no such persons be allowed to come near my son. It will never do for my son to become a 
Buddha. What I would wish to see is my son exercising sovereign rule and authority...' And when he had 
so spoken he placed guards for a distance of a quarter of a league in each of the four directions, in order 
that none of these four kinds of men might come within sight of his son. " Jataka 1:57. ROYAL LINEAGE 
Like Krishna, Gautama was an immediate royal descendant born into privilege. Jesus was a distant 
descendant of King David born into poverty. MILESTONE AGES Contrary to Jesus who taught in the 
temple at the age of 12, began his ministry at 30, and died at 33, Gautama's milestone ages differ from 
what the critics claim. He finished his education at 15, married at 16, became a monk at 29, reached 
enlightenment at 35, and died at 80. Source 

CRUCIFIXION Though critics claim some vague accounts mention Gautama being crucified, I can find no 
mention of this in any Buddhist source. In fact, we are told Gautama dies of natural causes at the age of 
80. His followers accompany him to a river and provide him with a couch. "'Be so good as to spread me a 
couch... I am weary and wish to lie down... ' Then the [Buddha] fell into a deep meditation, and having 
passed through the four jhanas, entered Nirvana. " Source. RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION After his 
death, Gautama's body was cremated. Source "And they burned the remains of the Blessed One as they 
would do to the body of a king of kings. " Source Gautama was said to transcend all meditation levels 
upon his deathbed before reaching Nirvana. But according to Buddhism, Nirvana is not a physical place, 
but a mental state. Like we mention with Krishna, the concept of Buddha transcending into Nirvana 


differs greatly from the Christian Heaven. 


1. He fed a multitude with a basket of cakes. There is no mention of this in any Buddhist text. 

2. Transfiguration on a Mount. Though Gautama reached spiritual enlightenment, he did not 
experience a physical transfiguration. Nor did this occur on a mount- Buddha obtained his 
enlightenment beneath the Bodhi tree . 

3. Crushing the Serpent's Head. Like Krishna, Buddha is never referred to by this title but a tale 
does surface in a later text which mentions him literally slaying a serpent. But as stated, this was 
a metaphorical title of Jesus. 

4. Poverty Vows. Though some Christians may take vows of poverty, this was never taught by 
Jesus. He only warned how the love of earthly possession could turn our focus away from eternal 
things. Matthew 6: 19-24 

5. Similar titles: Good Shepherd, Carpenter, Alpha and Omega, Sin Bearer, God of Gods, Master, 
Light of the World, Redeemer, Everlasting to Everlasting, etc. But Gautama never claimed to be a 
deity, rendering these titles obviously false. The only titles he shared with Jesus that I could find 
mentioned in Buddhist texts were Lord, Teacher and Holy One. 

IN CONCLUSION Because Buddhism shares many concepts with Hinduism (and originated in the 
approximate vicinity), there are actually more similarities between the stories of Buddha and Krishna 
than Buddha and Jesus. 

Alleged Crucified Deities: "We will now examine a list of alleged deities which skeptics claim 
were also crucified. Again, these accusations come to us from Kersey Graves in his proven-erroneous 
work, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors. 

OSIRIS: As we explain above, Osiris was said to have died after being tricked by Set. He was sealed into a 
chest then dumped into the Nile. Also, by everything I can find, the Osiris legend existed long before 
crucifixion was even invented! 


QUETZALCOATL: This allegation is somewhat humorous to me as Quetzalcoatl was an ancient god of 
South America. How on earth critics claim him as being an inspiration for Christ is beyond me as the 
Americas had not yet been discovered! Nevertheless, Quetzalcoatl is never said to have been crucified. 
One legend states he burned himself alive out of remorse for sleeping with a celibate priestess while 
another tells us he was consumed by fire sent by the gods. 

KRISHNA: Again, we have already shown how Krishna was said to have died: He was killed after 
accidentally being struck by a hunter's arrow while meditating. 

TAMMUZ/DUMUZID: Tammuz was supposedly killed by demons sent by Ishtar after she found him on 
her throne. Again, the myths surrounding Tammuz seem to exist before the practice of crucifixion. 

ALCESTIS: According to the legend, Alcestis agrees to die for her husband after he strikes a deal with the 
gods. When the time comes, Alcestis is described as being in bed. The gods are touched by her devotion, 
take pity on her, and reunite her with her husband. 

ATTIS: As we have already shown, Attis was said to have bled to death after emasculating himself. 

ESUS/HESUS: The only thing I could find regarding Esus (Not to be confused with the English translation 
Jesus) was that his followers would participate in human sacrifices by hanging a victim from a tree (not 
crucifixion) after disembowelment. I could find no mention of Esus (sometimes associated with the gods 
Mercury and Mars) suffering death. 

DIONYSUS: The death account we have already discussed concerning Dionysus shows him being eaten 
alive by the Titans during his infancy. 

INDRA: In one account, Indra is swallowed alive by the serpent, Vritra, who later spits him out at the 
command of the other gods. Because he is eventually saved, there really is no death account concerning 
Indra (nevertheless by crucifixion). 

PROMETHEUS: Prometheus was punished by Zeus by being chained to a mountain where an eagle 
would come and eat his liver on a daily basis. Later, Prometheus would be freed from his torment by 

MITHRAS: As already stated in this article, Mithras was never said to have experienced death but to 
have been carried to heaven in a chariot, alive and well. 

QUIRINUS: I can find no mention of Quirinus experiencing death. Even when associated with Romulus 
there is no death account as Romulus is said to have been taken up into the heavens while still alive. To 
explain his disappearance, many accused the senate of his death. Regardless, no crucifixion is said to 
have occurred. 


BEL: Often associated with Zeus, I could find no mention of the Babylonian Bel experiencing death. 

(MAHABALI): Bali is said to have been forced down (bodily) into the underworld after being deceived by 
Vamana, an avatar of Vishnu. In some accounts, Bali is said to have been released and granted kingship. 
Either way, no crucifixion occurs. 

ORPHEUS: Orpheus is said to have been killed by Dionysus' frenzied maenads after refusing to worship 
any god but Apollo. 

IAO & WITTOBA: I can find no information regarding the deaths of these two figures in any original, 
published source so I will refrain from commenting at this time in order to prevent hearsay. If any of my 
readers can refer me to the actual religious or first-hand texts containing these two figures, I will 

happily look into it. Until then, I will hold off on posting online links until I can verify the information". 

Conclusion: Though other authors go to great lengths investigating the claims listed in this 
discussion, my mission was to provide a brief synopsis that would help the reader distinguish between 
fact and fiction. Once the reader gets to the actual sources they will wonder how such claims even 
originated. If any of the critics cared to look into the facts for themselves before contributing to the 
propaganda, they would have been able to dismiss such claims immediately. Certain coincidences 
between Jesus and other figures can only be expected due to sheer probability. As a modern example, 
let's look at some of the coincidences between Kennedy and Lincoln as taken from here : 

1. Lincoln was elected to congress in 1846. Kennedy was elected to congress 1946 (Whereas 
Kennedy had instant success in legislative and executive politics, Lincoln suffered many defeats). 

2. Lincoln was elected president in 1860. Kennedy was elected president in 1960. (Considering 
presidential elections were held every four years, this only brings the odds to 1 in 20). 

3. The names Lincoln and Kennedy both contain seven letters (Until we consider their first names 
which destroys this parallel). 

4. Both were presidents during times of major changes in civil rights (So were their successors and 
several other presidents). 

5. Both presidents were killed by an assassin's bullet on a Friday (This holds only a one is seven 

6. Both assassins were known by three names consisting of 15 letters (Each man was not always 
referred to by three names. This mainly surfaced after they gained notoriety following the 

7. Both assassins were killed before their trials (Booth was killed when captured. Oswald was killed 
days after his arrest). 

8. Both men were succeeded by men with the surname of Johnson (Considering the popularity of 
the surname Johnson among white males, it would be no more of a coincidence by comparing 
two Muslim men who share the name Mohammed.) 

These coincidences may seem startling at first but really aren't that impressive once dissected. But in 
2000 years, will future civilizations look back on the "ancient Americans" and accuse Kennedy of being a 
figment of our imaginations? Will it seem we were so intrigued with Abraham Lincoln that we invented a 


character to mirror a great American hero? The intelligent mind who is willing to do the research and 
look for the truth behind such propaganda can easily find it" (From 


'Shattering the Christ Myth' by J.P Holding 

The Historicity of Jesus: Did he Exist?: history.html 

Evidence For the Existence of Jesus (parts 1-4) (Youtube): 

Christ Myth Theory (Wikipedia): myth theory 

Alleged Similarities between Jesus and other Pagan Deities: similarities.html 

Zeitgeist Refuted: The Final Cut (parts 1-12): 

Acharya S' Christ Conspiracy: Highlighted Problems: 

Is Jesus a Copy Cat? $1000 For Anyone that Can Prove it: 


Error#5 - Alan Attacks Christianity as something completely created 

by the Mystery Schools, & not high-jacked. 

5 basic things that he contends are: 1) At the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, Constantine 
hammered out Christian dogma; and the early Church Fathers drew upon pagan 
elements when constructing Christianity 2) the Bible has been rewritten and tampered 
with many times; & hundreds of books were left out 3) Christianity was made-up by the 
Mystery Religion/Roman-elite-families as a way to better enslave the masses 4) Paul 

never existed 5) Christianity was really a form of Gnosticism. = all lies, 
la) Alan on the Council of Nicea & how Christian dogma was decided upon: 

Wfr ^;^^^#^ 

"Alan: That was the Gnostic concept that preexisted Jesus and was also parallel with the time of 
Jesus. In fact many of the Gnostics complained to Constantine that he was stealing their religion 
that had always been there and they claimed that the real Jesus of course in Gnosticism could 
not be killed because he was pure spirit and that he was not born of a woman because he was 
pure spirit in fact. There was a tremendous debate in 325 AD to decide as to whether Jesus was 
pure spirit or was he spirit inside matter that had been born here. I mean they literally debated 
all this and of course all the Gnostic guys who came up were basically assassinated at the time 
of the meeting" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru Feb. 23 rd 2005). 

Constantine did not, nor the Council of Nicea, decide upon Christianity. Christianity grew 
organically via the writings of Jesus' followers, long before the Council was convened. By 100 


A.D, all 27 books of the New T. were in circulation (mainstream scholars agree that John's 'Book of 
Revelation' came last (around 95 A.D)). "The amount of evidence available to establish a first 
century date for the completion of the New Testament is so great that it cannot be reasonably 
denied" (pg. 15 - 'The New Testament Documents- Are They Reliable?' by Dr. F.F Bruce). At the 
Council of Nicea, the issue was not if Jesus was pure spirit or a physical being, rather, the issue 
(as the actual historical record reveals) was if Arius' take on Jesus was heresy or not. Christians 
from the very beginning (otherwise, it could not have even gotten started in the first place) 
believed that Jesus was the God of Israel incarnate- Arius, on the other hand, maintained that 
Jesus was rather a created being (though the one and only Son of God). There was no big 
debate, the assembled Church leaders from the grass-roots Christian community, with scars of 
torture and torment still fresh upon them (as the Diocletian Persecution had just ended in 313 
A.D.), voted unanimously (after hearing him defend himself) that Arius' doctrine was heresy and 
not compatible with Scripture. He was sentenced to death, he wasn't assassinated, but that was 
done by Constantine, as it was his party, and he was no doubt trying to win over the Christians 
(who had been persecuted for over 300 years). 

AD io- 

^40 — 

6© .- 

* CJesus ±hxr 

9 O^sus boftisedS 

• feulk 1st HiastcnoLry journey 
it 3rel ii a 

• PqjuU In prison 






invest jgatfogi of Uw e vittei iti 

F. R Bruce 



Arc they reliable? 


This timeline represents the mainstream view, where the Gospels are placed anywhere from 55 
A.D. to 90 A.D. (other dates have placed them earlier though). Modern scholars, regardless if 
they're atheists, agree that all 27 books of the New Testament were completed before 100 A.D 
(& were being passed around; same books, just in different collections). 

lb) Alan on how Christianity utilized concepts taken from older pagan religions: 

"Christianity as an institution was not created to enlighten the people of this world, but as the 
next phase of control and for advancement of the plan. Copious amounts of information abound 
concerning all of the ancient religions and their intermixing in ancient times. All of this was 
available to the "Church Fathers" who sorted through them, deciding on the doctrine and 
dogma to be taught for the next 2000 years" (pg. 25 'Cutting Through' 1). 

Again, if Jesus the Man and his apostles never existed, then Alan's story could fly high. 


lc) Alan on how the Dead Sea Scrolls show that Christianity borrowed from pagan sects: 

"Jackie: What about the Dead Sea Scrolls? Alan: The Dead Sea Scrolls, as far as we know, for all 
that's been leaked out, which isn't very much, is that they push the various cults which existed in 
Israel around 100 B.C right to the end of about 1870 or 1876 and they always focus on the one 
group, which was the Essene group. Jackie: So the Dead Sea Scrolls supposedly came from the 
Essenes? Why do you think they've kept the Dead Sea Scrolls so secret? Alan: I think because it 
would expose and there are many people who wouldn't like the exposure. The Catholic Church 
wouldn't like it exposed, because it would show you that many of the terms they used and have 
applied to Christianity were applied to the various pagan sects which existed long before 
Christianity. The modern leaders of world Jewry wouldn't like you to know either, that Israel 
itself worshipped many Gods, not just one. It's always sort of battened down or stamped into 
the Earth out of view or swept under the rug, but they have unearthed temples to Astarte or 
Ishtar or basically Esther, where the name comes from" (pg. 15 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 

The Dead Sea Scrolls are a collection of more than 900 documents (written mostly in Hebrew, 
some in Aramaic, and a little in Greek) discovered from 1947 to 1956 near the ruins of the 
ancient village of Qumran, near the Dead Sea. They have been dated to have been written 
between the 2 nd Century B.C. and 70 A.D., when the area was sealed off after the fall of Jerusalem, and 
they contain multiple copies of fragments of 38 out of 39 books from the Old T. (a book that is 
mono-theistic, not pagan or polytheistic). Even entire copies of the book of Isaiah have been 
found there. 1/3 of the scrolls are copies of Old Testament Scripture, and another 1/3 are 
traditional Jewish stories and commentary on Old T. books, and though Judaism is the 
foundation out of which Christianity necessarily grew, they're fundamentally different as 
Christians see Jesus as God incarnate. Alan mentioned that 'the Catholic Church fears that the 
Dead Sea Scrolls might reveal the foundations of Christianity to be bunk 7 , but the scrolls are 
simply books from the Old T., and they actually contain prophecies that allude to the coming of 
some kind of a 'Messiah' ( Isaiah 7:14 ), which strengthens the case for Christianity (certainly 
doesn't undermine it). No doubt the Catholic Church doesn't want people to know it is the 


Babylonian Mystery Religion in disguise, pagan and employing astro-theology, but the scrolls do 
not reveal that explicitly as Alan no doubt wants them to- but since they're only the Old T., and 
since the Old T. declares war on the Babylonian Mystery Religion, certainly the scrolls could 
expose the Catholic Church (but not Christianity). Prior to the Dead Sea Scrolls being found, the 
oldest Old T. writings in existence were the Masoretic texts (only being about a thousand years 
old). Thanks to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the world now knows for certain that Bacon and his 
buddies could not have changed the Old T. when they put out the King James' Bible in 1611. 
How can Alan claim that the "leaders of modern Jewry wouldn't like you to know that Israel 
worshipped many Gods"? Again, how the Israelites veered away from the traditional Judaic 
faith and worshipped other gods & goddesses is spelled out as clear as daylight within the Old T 
(and that's only demonstrative of Israelites becoming polytheists, not that Judaism is itself 
polytheistic). So much disinfo has come out regarding the Dead Sea Scrolls, thanks to Dan 
Brown and John Allegro (the latter telling everyone that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain evidence 
that Jesus and his New Testament teachings were in reality allegories for magic-mushroom 
ingesting cults that liked to drink their own pee). 

Za) Alan on how the Bible has been re-written many times & tampered with: 

"They wrote the Bible and gave us the clue" (pg. 45 'Cutting Through' 1). 

There are over 24,000 fragments of New T. writings from around the world, in separate 
languages, from vastly different times and places, and aside from a few scribal errors, all are in 
absolute 99% agreement. There are also over 5,000 Greek New T. manuscripts still in existence, 
so if the New T. has ever been changed, it should be one of the easiest things in the world to 
prove: all one would have to do is point out all the differences between the various New T. 
texts from different times and places- but so far, no one has ever done that (though some very 


educated Bible-haters would no doubt love to do so). How come? Simply because the New T. 
that we're reading today is the same one that people were reading in the 1 st Century A.D. 
Modern New Testament scholarship supports the idea that Paul's letters, Mark, Luke, and Acts- 
were all written before the late-60s AD (before Paul and Peter were martyred and Jerusalem 
was destroyed). What about the principle of embarrassment? If the Gospels were contrived 
propaganda, then why do we find embarrassing things within them? (i.e. the disciples being 
cast in a bad light, slow of understanding, and many times wrong; Jesus not knowing about his 
own 'Second Coming'; women first discovering his tomb empty and then seeing him risen- all 
details that some would say obviate the notion that the Gospels are a Roman literary psy-op. 
Archaeology and historical records have confirmed many characters & places contained within 
the Gospels and the Book of Acts, people like Pilate, Herod, Caiphas, Joseph of Arimathea, 
Peter, Paul, places like the Pool of Bethesda and the Pavement. 

■ Discovery: , 

Ancient Manuscripts - How accurate? 

Distort] on Rate 
12.00% n0 .30% 




New Testament 





Nuberol Manuscripts 








90(1 AD 







100 AD 




455400 ec 



iHomai's Iliad 




fcaesar's Gallic 

58-60 BC 



■Livy Roman 




Ito* Testament 

43-95 AD 

21 AC 




125 BC 


From 'On Guard" pg. 193 by Dr. William Lane Craig (Prof. Talbot School of Theology): 

"The Book of Acts overlaps significantly with the secular history of the ancient world, and the 
historical accuracy of Acts is indisputable. This has recently been demonstrated anew by Colin 
Hemer, a classical scholar who turned to New Testament studies, in his book 'The Book of Acts 
in the Setting of Hellenistic History'. Hemer goes through the Book of Acts with a fine-tooth 
comb, pulling out a wealth of detail, ranging from what would have been common knowledge 
down to details that only a local person would know. Again and again Luke's accuracy is 
demonstrated: From the sailings of the Alexandrian corn fleet to the coastal terrain of the 
Mediterranean islands to the peculiar titles of local officials, Luke gets it right. According to 
Professor Sherwin-White, "the confirmation of historicity in Acts is overwhelming. Any attempt 
to reject its historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd". The judgment of Sir 
William Ramsey, a world-famous archaeologist, still stands: "Luke is a historian of the first 
rank.. ..The author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians". Given Luke's care 


and demonstrated reliability, as well as his contact with eye-witnesses within the first 
generation after the events, this author is trustworthy" . 

From 'Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable' by Dr. Gary Habermas - 2001 - : "The fact that there is outstanding 
manuscript evidence for the New Testament documents is even admitted by critical scholars. 
2 John A.T Robinson succinctly explains, "The wealth of manuscripts, and above all the narrow 
interval of time between the writing and the earliest extant copies, make it by far the best 
attested text of any ancient writing in the world". 3 Even Helmut Koester summarizes: Classical 
authors are often represented by but one surviving manuscript; if there are half a dozen or 
more, one can speak of a rather advantageous situation for reconstructing the text. But there 
are nearly five thousand manuscripts of the NT in Greek... The only surviving manuscripts of 
classical authors often come from the Middle Ages, but the manuscript tradition of the NT 
begins as early as the end of II CE; it is therefore separated by only a century or so from the time 
at which the autographs were written. Thus it seems that NT textual criticism possesses a base 
which is far more advantageous than that for the textual criticism of classical authors. 4 The 
result of all this is an incredibly accurate New Testament text. John Wen ham asks why it is that, 
in spite of the "great diversity" in our copies, the texts are still relativity homogeneous. He 
responds, "The only satisfactory answer seems to be that its homogeneity stems from an 
exceedingly early text-virtually, that is, from the autographs. " 5 The resulting text is 99.99 
percent accurate, and the remaining questions do not affect any area of cardinal Christian 
doctrine" (pg 1-2). 

One of Dr. Habermas' sources there, Dr. John A.T Robinson, was famous for starting the 
academic 'Death of God Movement', but after critically looking into the New T/s textual 
history, became convinced of it, calling it "the best attested text in the ancient world". 

2b) Alan on how hundreds of books were left out of the Bible: 

"Jackie: That reminds me of the three wise men who came to visit when Jesus was born, were 
they them? Alan: Well, we don't know because two Gospels talk about the event, the other two 
Gospels completely omit it. So you've got to say to yourself, if this was a momentous event, why 
would the two others omit it or was it added in there. I don't know. It could have been added, 
the Bible has been tampered with since its beginning. There's no doubt on that. I mean, there 
were hundreds of other books, which were completely discarded" (pg. 41 'Waiting for the 
Miracle' - 1998). 

There are no 3 wise men/Kings in the Gospels, contrary to what Zeitgeist implied. We've got 
wise men in Matthew, in Luke, shepards that come in from the field, and in John and Mark, it's 
never mentioned. Mark opens with Jesus being older, and John, with the Logos. Two Gospels 


omitting the wise men (not 3, which shatters the astro-theology argument) does not warrant 
the inference that the New T. has been tampered with. They're written by different authors, 
using different narratives. Crucially, hundreds of books were never left out; the early Christian 
community knew what books were genuine and fake. All 27 books within the New T. were done 
by 100 A.D, and that's the most conservative estimate via modern New Testament scholarship. 
All other apocryphal texts, such as the Gospel of Thomas, or Peter, or Mary, were done 
hundreds of years after the death of Jesus. Those 27 books of the New T. were selected 
naturally because of their close temporal proximity to the early Christian religion, as well as the 
fact that its authors were either apostles or in close contact with them (as was the case with 
the author of 'Luke' and 'Acts', who followed Paul on his travels (from around 50 AD-62 AD). 

Dr. William Lane Craig on the 'Apocryphal Gospels': "The so-called apocryphal gospels forged 
under the apostles' names during the centuries after Christ, none is earlier than the second half 
of the second century after Christ. While not very valuable as sources for the life of Jesus, they 
are significant to the church historian who wants to learn about the various competing 
movements, often deeply influenced by pagan Gnostic philosophy, that the Christian church 
contended with during the first few centuries after Christ. Some of the apocryphal gospels 
include: Gospel of Peter, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of the Hebrews, Infancy of Gospel of 
Thomas, Gospel of Judas, Gospel of Phillip" ('On Guard' by Dr. William Lane Craig - pg. 187). 

The First Edition of the New Testament on Amazon 

The Book of Acts on Amazon 

3a) Alan on how Roman-elite-families financed Christianity & created martyrs in the hopes 
of acquiring more power and control over the people: 

"Towards the late first century A.D, various Christian groups vied for supremacy. By A.D 140, an 
Orthodox Church was leading, with a hierarchy of priests, deacons, and bishops. A few wealthy 
families within the Roman Empire financed this particular sector of Christianity, ignoring all the 
rest, similar to the Trust Foundations of today financing their agendas through front-groups 


called Non-Governmental Organizations. Roman Governors sacrificed many Christians in the 
arenas, creating martyrs. Orthodox leaders whipped up the sacrificial spirit, maintaining that 
those who emulated Christ were assured of everlasting life. This method of using the people's 
religion to further an agenda is ancient in the Middle-east. It is still used today in Islamic 
countries where dying for "the cause" ensures immediate entrance into Paradise" (pg. 31 'CT 

Everyone knows that the Roman Emperor required its subjects to worship him as a God, 
something the Christians refused to do, so the Romans enacted laws requiring all citizens to 
make sacrifices to him, or else face imprisonment or death. The New T. teaches any reader to 
never bow down to Rome, even in the face of death- so why would Rome make up a system 
that is antithetical to its 'worship-the-Emperor-as-a-God-system'? 3-4 million Christians were 
killed by the Romans during its informal persecution that lasted until the 3 rd Century A.D., and it 
culminated with the brutal Diocletian Persecution in 313 A.D. (when Roman soldiers were 
ordered to burn all Bibles and kill anyone found with them). Emperor Diocletian was reported 
to have said, "the Christian religion is now destroyed" (Alan's notion that Christianity is a 
Roman creation necessarily resides upon the presupposition that Jesus and his apostles never 

Dr. William Lane Craig on 'how life was for Christians in the Roman Empire': "Perpetua was a 
young mother who was arrested in the early third century AD for refusing to acknowledge other 
gods besides Christ. She and several others were sentenced to be torn to pieces by wild animals. 
While in prison she wrote an account of her experience, which survives to this day" ('On Guard' 
by Dr. William Lane Craig - 2010 - pg. 266). 


3b) Alan on how Christianity was made to enslave and pacify the masses: 

"The next phase in creating domesticated worker bees (the workers who create the honey) was 
to create Christianity" (pg. 55 'Cutting Through' 1). 

Creating Christianity requires nothing less than creating the New Testament Gospels, and Alan 
has presumed that the New T. is not a reliable and authentic collection of historical writings 
because the Mystery Religion tampered with it. But if Jesus and his apostles existed, then the 
Romans couldn't have started Christianity. If he really existed, then what does it mean to say 
that the Romans created it? What? He was educated by the Romans? Hardly. 

3c) Alan on how the Mystery Religion is behind all major religions; he plugs the historian Will 
Durant as the best source of info regarding this: 

"With minor variations, this was the standard esoteric religion of the International Elite, and still 
is to-day. For a more detailed history, see 'The Story of Civilization' by Will Durant, Simon and 
Shuster, also 'The Age of Faith', 'Christ and Caesar', 'The Life of Greece', 'Our Oriental 
Heritage', by the same author(s). These are generally obtainable from local libraries" (pg. 33 
'Cutting Through' 1). 

So far, Alan has been dropping Will's name when it came to the Hebrew language and 
Maimonides, Christianity, ancient history, and now, the idea that the esoteric Mystery Religion 
is embedded within the other religions. But here's Will Durant, the great 20 th Century American 
philosopher and historian backing up the reliability of the New Testament Gospels, saying 
they've got all the earmarks of authenticity and do not appear to be propaganda or the stuff of 
myths. Durant is referring to the 'principle of embarrassment', and along with the other 
principle of 'multiple attestation', both are accepted as critical criteria by scholars used to 
support the argument for the reliability of the Gospels and the historicity of Jesus. So here we 
have Will Durant plugging Jesus the Man and the New Testament Gospels in an extremely 
supportive way: From Wiki: "The American philosopher and historian Will Durant has applied 
the criterion of embarrassment, writing: "Despite the prejudices and theological 
preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would 
have concealed- the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight 
after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the 
references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his 
confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the 
cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few 
simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, 
so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more 
incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the 
outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute 
the most fascinating feature in the history of Western man" ('Christ and Caesar' by Will 
Durant - Simon & Schuster, 1972 - p. 557 - CHAPTER XXVI: 'Jesus: 4 B.C.-A.D. 30'). "He argues 


that if the Gospels were entirely imaginative, these and other issues in the life of Christ would 
probably not exist; a purely creative narrative would likely present Jesus in strict conformity 
with preexisting messianic expectations. The fact that the New Testament documents record 
otherwise embarrassing elements therefore strongly indicates their roottedness in historical 
events". (Ill) (111: "Since the Enlightenment, the Gospel stories about the life of Jesus have 
been in doubt. Intellectuals then as now asked: 'What makes these stories of the New 
Testament and more historically probable than Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairytales?' The critics 
can be answered satisfactorily... For all the rigor of the standard it sets, the criterion (of embarrassment) 
demonstrates that Jesus existed" (Segal 2005)". 

Will Durant definitely believed in the existence of Jesus and said in 'Christ and Caesar' (1972) 
that the he viewed the Gospels as reliable historical documents (based on the 'principle of 
embarrassment' ( pg. 557 - in the pdf. pg. 670 ) f but in the above quote taken from Alan's 
Cutting Through Volume 1 (1999), he says that 'Christ and Caesar' contains stuff about the 
Mystery Religion (thus putting into doubt the authenticity of the Christian faith). Christianity 
goes on nothing but the New T. Gospels, and Will Durant saw them as reliable documents, not 
the product of some kind of tampering, or a literary creation of the Mystery Religion, so on one 
side of the spectrum, we have Durant saying that the Gospels are authentic (thus good 
evidence for inferring Jesus' historicity and existence), and Alan, on the opposite side, asserting 
that they're mythical stories derived from astro-theology, containing allegories of deeper 
esoteric Mystery-Religion-themes (thus, he never existed). So we can see Durant fundamentally 
disagreeing with Alan, so just like with Velikovsky, who undermined Alan's contention that 
there were no ancient Israelite people, and that they were the Hyksos- Durant has put spokes in 
Alan's claims about Christianity. Next, we'll see Alan turn on him in 2010. 

3d) Alan on Will Durant in 2010; he now flip-flops and says that Durant is a tainted source. 
Alan used Durant since 1998 to back up many of his notions, such as the idea that the 


Mystery Religion and other pagan elements are tied to Christianity- but here, Alan now tells 
us that he was a Rockefeller front-man, paid to skew history: 

"Therefore, they decided on this, as I say, long before in world meetings to do with world 
federalism. Durant wrote about it. He was set up. Will Durant was a front man for Rockefeller. 
His job was to set out a whole bunch of histories of the world with a particular slant intended - 
and he admitted this at the end because apparently, supposedly he committed suicide because 
of what he'd done - but he said, this slant on history, was to take all hope away from people 
that individuality could leave the world in safety. It was to make them think that dictators and 
tyrants just arose spontaneously in populations and societies and slaughtered lots of people and 
dominated peoples for a while until another one took over somewhere else; just 'happenings', 
you might say in the hippie terminology, when nothing's further from the truth. Because you'll 
find even in ancient times the bankers funded nations to go to war. Money ruled then and 
money rules today and banking families are intergenerational down through the ages and very 
powerful people. As I say, Will Durant was found with his wife eventually, after doing this 
massive compendium of histories, slanted histories, on behalf of and paid for totally by the 
Rockefeller Foundation to take the hope away from people and he said in his suicide note, This 
is terrible, we are taking the hope, we are taking the hope away from people; the hope of 
creating a better world for themselves by giving them this bleak future in a slanted fashion'. The 
idea of slanting it was so that we'd give up all our rights and allow those that were fittest' to 
rule us, to come forward and do so" (Cutting Through the Matrix, May 18 th 2010). Watt CTTM LIVEonRBN 579 Wolve 
s Gaze Down Expressions of Piety Prey Ask Save Us with Planned World Society Ma 

Alan says that Durant basically committed suicide at the age of 96, being found with a note and ail- 
but nowhere can this be found. His wife, Ariel, actually died 13 days before him. Suicide at 96? 

4) Alan on how Paul never existed & how his name connects him to the Mystery Religion: 

"Jackie: Paul talks about the wrath of God. I would like your insight. Alan: Well, they didn't have 
internet in those days, so they had a hard time coordinating their stories and that's why the first 
book is the book of Acts and that's why Shakespeare wrote that all the world is the stage and 
we are but players. You have the name Paul (he changes it from Sun, which is Saul, S-O-L, S-A-U- 
L, it's all the same thing) and he changed it to Paul. If you look at the root of where Paul comes 
from, and in Old Latin (they've changed Latin about three times down through the ages) and the 
ancient root of Paul was pagla, then they changed it to page, a noble squire. Part of being a 
squire is being a page, and a page is also a leaf and a leaf is part of a tree, you see. So Pa la, 
which is the old name for it, pagela also means a spade or a socket. It's a socket where you put 
a jewel into a ring, called a pa la. Pa la in English is P-A-L-A. That's what the word Paul means, so 
Paul is the seat into which the jewel is fitted. So in other words, it's a pseudonym. It's made up. 


l/l/e normally call it a bezel today in jewellery, but the old name in Latin is actually pa la, so it's 
also a seat or something which you carry, like a pallbearer carries a body. The old root of that 
word came from Palaemon, who was the old sea God in ancient times, also called Melicertes, 
who was a shepherd or the keeper of cattle. The word palestra comes from palace. The word 
palestra in Latin (the same as the Greek) was the art of speaking or rhetoric. Of course, in 
Greece, they had the sophist school, the wrestle; you need to wrestle with the words, wrestle 
with the voice. That's where you get palatine or paulatine, Palatine Hill was the hill on which the 
temple was seated, the temple of Apollo in ancient Rome". - "Jackie: What about the changing 
of his name to Saul after he had his experience on the road to Damascus? Alan: Saul is already 
the light. He was the bringer of the light. He became the pallbearer. He wasn't a he at all, 
obviously. He is a pallbearer. He was the carrier. He was the speaker from his mouth, palestra, 
verbal wrestling in the school of rhetoric, you see". - "Jackie: I notice here in Acts, chapter 11, 
and Verse 26 (describing) when Paul went into Antioch. It says that a whole year they assembled 
themselves, with the church, and the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. So actually 
it was Paul who established the church, wasn't it? Alan: No. There was no Paul. There was no 
such person as just one singular Paul. Paul literally is the root meaning for speaking. It's a name. 
It's like Lazarus rising from the dead. That's what Lazar means. It's a pseudonym for a method of 
pushing something. Pa la literally is the socket in which you set a jewel. We call it the bezel 
today. Anybody can go and look it up for themselves. Jackie: So you're saying that these letters 
were not written by a person named Paul? Alan: They couldn't have been. It's like somebody 
calling a person who weeds your garden Dandy Lion, you know. He gets on the road to 
Damascus and the symbol for Damascus is the rose. The rose of Damascus. The rose of 
Damascus is the cross. It's the sun cross. It's the equidistant cross within a circle. It has four 
areas inside of it. Each one of them is ninety degrees which is a true angle. That's what you'll see 
on most of the templar dons, their cloak. You'll see it on the badge of the Klu Klux Klan; you'll 
see it in Israel. You'll see it everywhere. It's the sign of the Sun. The rose. Each petal being four; 
the four parts of order" (pg. 177-179 - 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

Paul's letters attest to his existence, if Alan ever wants us to believe stuff like this, he needs to 
give us more sources. How would this fare against real academic scholarship? Will Durant, the 
famous American historian believed in Paul's existence. Check out 'Christ & Caesar - BOOK V: 
THE YOUTH OF CHRISTIANITY: 4 B.C.- A.D. 325'. In it, he chronicles Paul's life & death. 

5a) Alan on how Christianity was really a Gnostic-type religion: 

"Alan: Rome took over Christianity, which really was a Gnostic type religion" (ALAN WATT 


Indeed, Rome did take over Christianity, but Christianity has nothing to do with Gnosticism. If it 
did, then why were all the apocryphal books, the Gnostic ones, not included in the New 
Testament? Early on, the Christian community knew Gnosticism was very different from the 
teachings of Jesus (who really existed). If Jesus existed, then he must be the source of 
Christianity, and if his teachings were not Gnostic, and the Gospels are not Gnostic, then 
therefore, Christianity cannot be Gnostic. All Gnostic/theosophical bodies of thought believe 
that Godhood lies within, but Christianity is at opposite ends of the spectrum: it maintains that 
the only way to salvation is via Christ, and not from 'within' or knowledge. Gnosticism & 
Theosophy see illumination, their form of salvation, as always resulting from knowledge, but 
the teachings of Jesus have nothing to do with knowledge, yet everything to do with faith. 

5b) Alan on how Jesus was a concept taken from the Gnostics: 

"Alex: Would you say thot actually Jesus Christ was on incornote god, or is he just o port of the 
story thot they actually took from Egypt and from Hindu religions and basically retold the same 
story, or was he actually a god incarnated? Could you please address this? Alan: The thing is, if 
he was a god incarnated he would not be praying to himself when he was in the garden. Alex: 
Christian teaching says that it was actually [inaudible] of the godhead and so he was actually a 
human being and God manifested in flesh and therefore he was praying to his Heavenly Father 
who was not a part of the personal God, the godhead Alan: What they mean by that, even in 
the old esoteric period, was Gnostic again. They criticized Constantinefor stealing their deity, 
which was a perfection of what all men could become if they sought after the truth. That's why 
they said that Jesus left no footprints in the sand. It was something that was in your mind that 
you tried to achieve to become a god. You didn't become God until you could give - say good- 
bye to the past. You were not afraid of what you'd done. You had come to terms with it. You 
were not afraid of the future and therefore you're hung as the sun hangs between the past and 
the present, the two robbers, the two unworthy thieves. That's what it means. The one who is 
forgiven is the future because that's the one you can change" (ALAN WATT "CUTTING 
OF NATIONS" October 10, 2007). 

Alan's analysis of the purported account of Jesus' crucifixion between the two thieves only flies 
if he never even existed; and how could the apostles have taken the notion of a physically 
resurrected Messiah from Gnostic circles? For according to Alan, the Gnostics only saw him 
metaphorically, as an emblematic spirit-being, not a flesh and blood character. If Jesus existed, 
then how could Constantine have stolen their deity? 

5c) Alan on how Aryan's group was the main contestant within Christianity: 

"There were hundreds of other sects that existed which were basically exterminated after the 
Council of Nicea 325 A.D. One of the main contestants was the Arian group and they believed 
each man had a direct path to God" (pg. 41 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 


The Arian group was not the main contestant, its leader was branded a heretic by all the other 
Christian leaders within the Christian community at the Council of Nicea for claiming that Jesus 
was not God incarnate. At that time, there was no official Church, just a grass-roots community, 
& still bearing the scars of persecution (as the official Diocletian one had just ended in 313 A.D). 
If the Arian group believed that each person had a direct path to God, then that would 
obviously go against the New Testament teachings of Jesus the Man: who famously, and 
outrageously, claimed that he was the only intermediary and 'Way' to God ( John 14:6 ; Acts 
4:10 ; John 16:23 ). 

5d) Alan on how the Bible is full of the Babylonian Mysteries: 

"Alan: Oh yes, the whole New Testament is full, completely full of what we call the mysteries or 
Masonic symbology. Don 't forget that it said it's Babylon of the Ages; it's Mystery Babylon. You 
even have Jesus going into an upper room to make the last supper. Well, in the upper room is 
the Upper Chambers in the House of Commons in Britain or here in Parliament in Canada. You 
have your oval office; it's where you meet in secret. Chambers comes from ham which is egg 
which is oval, so in upper chambers. So it's all being adjusted to suit their terminology for 
themselves; the whole Bible is full of it" (pg. 127 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

Could Alan be right? I will show over 50 quotes from the Bible, proclaiming spiritual war against 
the Mystery Religion, but here's Alan claiming that the New T. is connected to the Mystery 
Religion just because Jesus was in an "upper room"? Apples to oranges, anything to anything. 

Links and Sources 

Dr. Gary Habermas - 'Recent Perspectives on the Reliability of the Gospels' (2005) 

Dr. Gary Habermas - 'Why I Believe The New Testament Is Historically Reliable' (2001) 

Dr. David Trobish - 'The First Edition of the New Testament' (2000) 

Dr. John AT. Robinson - 'Can We Trust the New Testament?" (1977) 

Dr. Colin J. Hemer - 'The Book of Acts in the Setting of Hellenistic History' (1990) 

Dr. F.F. Bruce - 'The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?' (1943) 

Dr. William Lane Craig - 'On Guard' (2010) 

'The Council of Nicaea Debunked' (Youtube): 

'Has the llluminati changed the Bible?' (Youtube): 

The Dead Sea Scrolls on Wiki: Sea Scrolls 

The First Council of Nicaea on Wiki: Council of Nicaea 

Will Durant Reviews: 


Error#6 - Alan props up the 'Zeitgeist-astro-theological-lie', which 
attempts to link Christianity/the New T. to the movements of the Sun & 
the Constellations = a lie. 

For Alan and other theosophical promoters, this line of thought will only ever work if Jesus 
never existed, Dec 25 th was actually contained within the Bible, and all the alleged similarities 
between characters in the Gospels and the Zodiacal signs were in fact true. In some shape or 
form, a host of people maintain the zeitgeist-astro-theological-lie. Peter Joseph, Jordan 
Maxwell, Michael Tsarion, Acharya S., and Alan Watt- all use astrotheology. Alan especially uses 
it to show how the ancient priesthood operates (he claims that the 12 Zodiacal signs were 
made up by them Ages ago to serve as a Great Plan/blue-print for planetary control (so, for 
example, the Age of Aquarius is supposed to symbolize the planet being depopulated again on 
a massive scale, as the water being poured out stands for all the 'useless eaters' getting killed 
off)). All of them try and connect the Sun's movements around Dec 25 th to the origins of 
Christianity, as well as promote the concept of Astrological Ages (so they can proclaim that 
literally we will be entering a New Age at some point in the future- though they differ: Zeitgeist 
says 2150, Alan has said 2030, others smell, and maybe rightly, the 2012 hoop-la as a 
diversionary cover for its beginning). Alan says that the Zodiac (the Heavenly Train) serves as 
the foundation for most religions (especially Christianity). The idea of Astrological Ages comes 
from a real phenomenon, namely, the Earth's Precession: where its wobble upon its rotation 
causes the perspective of the sky to shift- so every 2160 years, the sun would rise under a new 
Zodiacal sign in the sky (thus entering into a New Age) (aside: every 72 years, our perspective of 


the sky and the constellations shifts by 1 degree, after 2160 years, it has shifted by 30 degrees, 
therefore, after 25,920 years, a complete 360 degrees- thus completing 1 cycle. But remember, 
the constellations/stars do not really move, they are fixed, it is only our perspective of them 
from Earth that is changing). So I s , I will broadly define the 'Zeitgeist-astrotheological-lie', and 
then deal with the supposed parallels between Jesus & characters from the New Testament 


with astronomical phenomenon. 2 , I will examine the whole concept from a real astronomical 
perspective, showing that it doesn't hold (I will be citing from Chris White's 'Debunking 
Astrotheology 1 , where, thanks to a free astronomy program available for download called 
'Stellarium', he demonstrates the basic tenants of astrotheology to be fallacious). In fact, 
anyone equipped with some rudimentary knowledge of astronomy will be able to see through 


the entire facade- and then 3 , I will go into some of Alan's quotes on the matter. The 
'astrotheological-death-reborn-Sun-God-story', or some would call it, the 'Zeitgeist- 
astrotheological-lie', is the idea that the 3 stars/Kings of Orion's Belt and Sirius pointing 
together towards the sun-rise on Dec 25 th , and the Sun appearing to hang in the sky for 3 days 
near the Southern Cross constellation, are the true origins of Christianity. Crucially, this 
paradigm resides upon the key presupposition that Jesus, Mary, and the 12 disciples never 
existed and are only representative of the Sun, Virgo and the 12 constellations, and if 
astrotheology is correct, if the New T. contains astrotheological themes and symbols (i.e the 
Age of Aquarius apparently being referenced by Jesus in Mark & Luke)- then it would have had 
to have been tampered with by the ancient priesthood. But that theory has huge problems: 1 st , 
December 25 th and 3 Kings/wise men are never even mentioned in the New Testament, 2 nd , 
parallels made between Jesus and his 12 apostles with the sun and the 12 Zodiacal signs only 
have substance if they never existed and are mythical, but after already proving their existence 
with a plethora of historians (notably, Will Durant, Alan's fave source regarding history)- then 
linking them to the sun and the 12 signs becomes a vacuous and insignificant comparison. 
Astrotheology can never debunk Christianity, but it can easily do the reverse. We've already 
established the existence and historicity of Jesus the Man, and the authenticity and reliability of 
the Gospels, thanks to Will Durant- the greatest American historian of the 20 th Century. Durant 
spent over 40 years writing his series on the history of Western Civilization with his wife and 
collaborator, Ariel, and without a doubt, he has blown Alan out of the water and proven him to 
be completely false in terms of the origins of Christianity. So whose view is correct? Durant's or 
Watt's? Durant spent years researching his works, lacing them with thousands of footnotes and 
references (allowing the reader to critically judge them), whereas Alan's 3 'Cutting Through' 
books possess almost no real footnotes and appear as though they were written over a couple 
of weekends (and let's not forget all the Glen Kealey material that he included without 
referencing him). Alan has said in 2010 that Durant was paid by the Rockefellers in such a way 
as to take away the hope from people, but Durant wrote about Christianity in a positive way, as 
within the text of 'Christ and Caesar' (1972), he clearly admires and stands in awe of the 


historical personage known as Jesus of Nazareth. Does 'Christ and Caesar' sound like a 
historical work devoid of hope? It is obvious how the Rockefellers feel about Christianity, they 
no doubt see it as an obstacle hampering their New World Order, and so if Durant was truly a 
Rockefeller front-man, then why didn't we see Durant slanting it? (at the least, putting into 
doubt its authenticity or questioning the historicity of Jesus?). Instead, he backs it up, and with 
his level of intelligence and credentials (he was also a philosopher), it becomes an endorsement 
that destroys Alan's theories. Incredibly, in Alan's 1 st 'Cutting Through' book, and on his initial 
appearances on Jackie's show, he threw out the names Velikovsky, Graves, and Durant- but in 
the end, all ended up debunking him in regards to key questions within ancient history and 
religion. Concerning the question of the existence of the ancient Israelites, the Hebrew 
language, the Habiru-Hyksos question, David, Solomon, and Judaism period- Velikovsky ripped 
Alan's arms off; in terms of the Septuagint & the Hebrew language- Graves ripped off his legs; 
regarding Christianity, if Jesus and the apostles and Paul ever existed, and if the NewT. was 
created by the Mystery Religion or not- Durant ripped off his head. Isn't that amazing? Those 3 
historians constitute Alan's main sources that he employed in his interviews with Jackie, as well 
as within his written work, to throw into doubt the authenticity of Judaism and Christianity- but 
after digging into all 3 of them, one finds them fundamentally disagreeing with Alan. Did Alan 
even read those books? ('Ages in Chaos', 'Hebrew Myths', 'Christ and Caesar'?) If he didn't, he 
was lying, if he did, he was really lying (and one gets the feeling that he has read them, as Alan 
is well-read, no doubt). What Velikovsky, Graves, and Durant do to Alan is fatal, as all 3 are 
respected historians (especially Durant), and they demonstrate him to be a twister of history. 
When Alan's own cited sources for some of his particular ideas debunk him, then that clearly 
shows that some kind of distortion is going on (as he's not stupid), and Alan cannot dig himself 
out of this hole, as he has already dug it for himself. 3 years ago, I was under his spell, believing 
everything he said regarding ancient history because most things he said about modern history 
were dead-on- but my delving broke that spell, not because I had something personal against 
him (for 2 years he was my intellectual guru- and probably still is today for many others). At the 
beginning of the introduction, I mentioned that I considered Alan to be a subtle theosophist, 
and many might have scoffed upon initially reading that, but after documenting all of his errors, 
his constant word-tricks and theosophical inversions, how he distorts history and subtly shields 
Freemasonry, attacks the Bible over and over in an unjustifiable way (always twisting the 
meaning of the text), but most importantly, how the major books that he cites end up 
fundamentally disagreeing with him- how can one not be able to say with justification that, at 
the least, Alan is a subtle theosophist, and at the worst, a NWO-shill? (helping to dismantle all 
of the old religions by manipulating the actual historical record and explaining away all of the 
major world-religions as having been predicated upon astrotheology- which is exactly what the 
Freemasons learn (hence, he's selling the Freemasonic/theosophical version of history to 


The 'Astrotheological-Death-Reborn-Sun-God-Story' 

The story goes that on Dec 22 nd , 23 rd , and 24 th , the Sun stops moving south (at least perceivably 
from the Northern Hemisphere) for 3 days, and then on the 25 th , rises higher in the sky 
(symbolizing the resurrection of the Sun/Son of God). Other details include a) the Sun appears 
to hang or reside in the vicinity of the Southern Cross constellation (thus the Sun was crucified) 
b) on December 24 th , the 3 stars/Kings/wise men of Orion's Belt align with the star Sirius, which 
then all point towards the December 25 th sun-rise c) characters of the Zodiac are incorporated 
into the story, so Jesus is the Sun that passes through his mother Virgo, who is then given a kiss 
of death by Scorpio (Judas), bringing on his death/winter, and then his eventual rebirth on 
December 25 th 


Problems With The 'Astrotheological-Death-Reborn-Sun-God-Story' 

Using the astronomy software program 'Stellarium', Chris White showed that 2000 years ago, 
at sunrise in Egypt, the constellation Orion with his 3 Kings was nowhere to be seen in the sky 
(having already passed over the horizon and set many hours earlier). 'Astrotheology Debunked' 
by Chris White: 

The 3 Kings of Orion's Belt aligning with Sirius on December 24 th = a lie. 

In ancient times, 2000 years ago, because of the Earth's Precession, Orion set even earlier than 
it does today- but let's look at today's celestial configuration. In December, at sunrise, Orion is 
seen nowhere in the sky, having already set, but he does appear before the sunrise in October 
or early November. As far as Orion's 3 Kings aligning with the star Sirius on December 24 11 
which Zeitgeist explicitly maintains (and which is no doubt one of the cornerstones of the 



astrotheological lie)- that turns out to be an outright distortion. To say Orion and Sirius align 
together and point towards the sun-rise on Dec 25 th is a lie because, 1 st , they only point 
towards the sunrise together in October and early November (as just where the Sun is rising, 
Sirius and Orion are still looming large in the sky- as they haven't yet set and drifted over the 
horizon)- and 2 ' Orion's 3 Kings and Sirius are stars, and they stay fixed in relation to the 
Earth's rotation, meaning they're always aligned with each other in the sky, always occupying 
the same fixed position in the sky in relation to one another- though moving across it (rising & 

The Sun dying on the 22 nd , 23 rd , 24 th , then reborn on the 25 th = a lie. 

The purported 3 day death & resurrection of the Sun from the perspective of the Northern 
Hemisphere is wrong. It isn't on the 22 nd , 23 rd , 24 th , and then ascension on the 25 th . 
The Winter Solstice occurs on the 22 nd at 6:00am, so the sun's 3-day jaunt actually occurs on 
the 21 st , 22 nd , & the 23 rd . They're just making the details fit the story. 

The Sun being crucified on the Southern Cross constellation = a lie. 

In the Northern Hemisphere, the concept of the death & rebirth of the Sun/Son at winter could 
emerge, but not in the Southern H., where on December 25 th , the sun is high in the sky (being 
their summer- so it wouldn't seem like a death). But most importantly, the Southern Cross 
constellation is only visible from the Southern Hemisphere, as in the Northern Hemisphere, it is 
always low on the horizon. But around Dec 25 th , in the Southern Hemisphere, the sun doesn't 
appear to rise anywhere near the Southern Cross constellation anyways, and this is because it is 
perpendicular to the Earth's rotation and orbit. Simply put, the Sun and the Southern Cross 
constellation come nowhere near each other, no matter the time of the year. Above all else, 
historians teach that the Romans invented crucifixion, so how could any ancient peoples have 
come up with a crucified character? (especially in Egypt- as we know for certain that there, 
Horus and Osiris were never crucified or resurrected (Horus never died, & Osiris just passed 
into the Underworld, and continued living there). From 'Preventing Truth Decay' by Dr. Noel 
Swerdlow, Prof, of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago: "The stars of the 
Southern Cross are just visible above the southern horizon in Alexandria, and in Jerusalem in 
antiquity although I don't think it is visible there now. The constellation was, however, not 
recognized in antiquity and its four bright stars were included by Ptolemy in Centarus, which 
sort of surrounds it. That Crux, the Southern Cross, was not recognized as a separate 
constellation in antiquity is probably because, as seen from the Mediterranean, it is low on the 
southern horizon and is surrounded on three sides by the stars of Centaurus, which is a large, 
prominent constellation, and the four bright stars of the Crux are included as stars of Centaurus 
in Ptolemy's star catalogue. It is only when you go farther to the south, so that the Crux is higher 


in the Southern sky, that it becomes prominent as a group of stars by itself so its recognition 
had to wait until the southern voyages of the sixteenth century" ( "Preventing Truth 7 ). 


_ 4 • 

■ Epsilon 

Mu Cm ■ 






Beta - 

\ ■ Epsilon Ci 


DEC 22,23,24 

Rigil j 









■ Alphi 

a Cir 

■ Alpha Mus 

Were the Ancients acknowledging the division of the Astronomical Ages? 

Alan always talks about the "Heavenly Train", Zeitgeist too, how the Age of Aries (2000 B.C) 
signified Moses, Pisces (0 A.D), Jesus, and Aquarius (2150 AD) will usher in a New Age- but 
Professor Noel Swerdlow from the University of Chicago, who has studied the history of 
astronomy from antiquity to the 17 th Century A.D., completely disagrees with the idea that the 
12 astronomical divisions of the sky into 'Ages' (where Taurus = 4000 B.C., Aries/ Moses = 2000 
B.C., Pisces/Jesus = 0. A.D. etc.) was known in ancient times. Dr. Swerdlow says that the division 
of the celestial sections didn't take place until the 20 th Century, when they were decided upon 
by the 'International Astronomical Union' ( from Zeitgeist Refuted Part 1 ). "The division into the 
12 zodiacal signs did not occur until the Babylonians made the divisions in the fifth century 
B.C (12) Therefore, reading astrology into the twelve tribes is anachronistic'" - Dr. Mike Licona 

Why was Jesus associated with a fish? 

From 'Zeitgeist Refuted Part 1' by Keith Truth: quoting former professional astrologer Marcia 
Montenegro, she says, "the fish was an early symbol of Christ because the Greek word based on 
the initials of Jesus Christ, Son of God, and Saviour, spelled fish'". 


Alan has said the Sphinx is a Woman/Virgo 

Alan has said that the Sphinx symbolizes the Heavenly Train/the Great Year, the Zodiacal plan 
going through one 25, 920-year cycle (as it is simply Leo the Lion with Virgo on top). But Manley 
P. Hall, in his magnum opus 1928 work 'The Secret Teachings of All Ages' (pg 113), said that it 
was meant to represent a man (one of the Pharaohs). Hall mentions how the Sphinx's adjoining 
beard was reportedly found on the ground during reconstruction efforts undertaken by 
Pharaoh Tahutmes IV (who freed it from its sandy-tomb). 

1) Alan on how the Freemasons are "brainwashed" into accepting astro-theology: 

"In order to comprehend freemasonry and the very definite process of brainwashing then one 
should realize that from the outset a de-programming of the national culture and religion is 
occurring. The initiate is shown various truths in verbal and symbolic form in the hope he will 
come to the desired conclusion by himself Few proceed to the higher degrees where racial 
mythology is shown to be international mythology, containing the same esoteric meanings. The 
initiate, to become an Adept will then understand that all religions contain the same inner 
SOLAR CYCLE, LUNAR CYCLE ETC. The Mason then feels he has joined company with the elite. He 
tends to look down on the 'profane masses' who need to 'worship an external, fearsome deity 
because they are too primitive to govern themselves otherwise" (pg. 26 'Cutting Through' 1). 

Sounds exactly like what Zeitgeist 1 was teaching to the masses. The key question is, do the 
Freemasons get the truth? or are they being manipulated? We'll see via their own horse's 
mouth, how the ones in the top degrees openly worship Lucifer, and it is obvious that the ones 
in the lower degrees remain unaware of this fact. So one can logically conclude that the 
majority of Freemasons are duped and deceived- still, Alan praises them many times as having 
access to the truth, and being keepers of the real histories. Zeitgeist's goal was to subtly 
inculcate upon people the same kind of Freemasonic/Mystery-Religion-type-concepts that 
Freemasons learn upon their initiation, but because Freemasonry no doubt has an inner/hidden 
religion to itself, the astrotheological concepts that the Masons initially learn are no doubt a 
form of propaganda. If Lucifer lies at the top of the highest degrees in Freemasonry, then one 
can view the "deprogramming" that each Mason undergoes as tainted by an ulterior motive, 
not by any dispassionate objective to search for the truth. Masons are deprogrammed away 


from their traditional narratives so as to make them into instruments. They're shown 
astrotheology in the hopes that they will break away and see their new view as superior, thus 
creating the necessary sentiment of elitism that turns them into such obedient and efficient 

2) Alan on how all religions are esoterically based off the solar/stellar/lunar cults: 

"Alan: Well, sure because that's all part of it. They will tell you themselves that all religions (and 
they kind of boast about it) stemmed from the same solar cult thousands and thousands and 
thousands - actually almost a million years ago; and prior to that, there was the stellar cult; and 
prior to that, there was the lunar cult. That's why the emblems they use come from all three, 
because they incorporated them all until they became the solar cult" (Alan on the 'Sweet 
Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru May 2 nd 2005). 

Again, he sides with the Freemasonic view- and why? because he never says that they're wrong 
when it comes to astrotheology and its relation to the Bible. All religions flow from Babylon, 
proven brilliantly by Alexander Hislop in his classic work 'The Two Babvlons' . 

3) Alan on how Christianity is linked to astro-theology & December-Sun-worship etc.: 

"Alan: Scorpio also is really Judas. Judas gives the kiss of death. The kiss of death from a 
scorpion leaves it's - it's like marks from the lips on its victim and so the sun is always given the 
kiss of death at this time of year, then in December he dies and rises again after hanging for 
three days and three nights. That's the sun. It's doesn't rise any higher towards in its path, its 
journey until the three days are over in mid-winter. It's an ancient religion. It's been used over 

"Every religion has twelve main followers' circling around a sun/son, as the sun in its great 
arc(k) swings through the con-stella(stars)tions(sion)s" (pg. 56 'CT 2'). 

Christianity could justifiably be connected to all of this if Jesus and his disciples never existed 
(which Alan, of course, maintains)- but if Jesus existed, and he had 12 apostles (Durant believes 
that), then connecting them to the 12 constellations is a stupid stretch. Alan's little Sun/Son- 
trick works for English, but English has only been around for 500 years or so. The events in 
question transpired over 1500 years before English was even on the radar- so how does Alan 
pointing out some semantical similarity mitigate the fact (via the discipline of history) that Jesus 
of Nazareth existed? And if he referred to himself as the 'Son', then he would have done it in 
Aramaic no doubt (not English). 

"Since then, every winter, the sun/son of god is killed, representing the sun at its lowest point of 
the year at noon. For two days it 'struggles' to go higher, but only manages to do so on the third 


day. At this time, the hunter, Orion, appears in the Eastern sky, and at December (around the 
24 th ) can be observed in the evening, travelling with the three main stars of his girdle, or belt, 
coming from the east to the south within a few hours" (pg. 56 'Cutting Through' 2). 

Alan mentioned how around the 24 th of December, Orion can be observed "coming from the 
east to the south within a few hours". This is amazing, and would only fool people with 
absolutely no astronomical sense. Orion always has to rise and set over the horizon whenever 
he appears in the sky throughout the year, and he only appears before the sunrise with his 3 
King's & Sirius in October to early November. So Alan is stretching the facts and ignoring the 
regular motion of the stars by trying to link Orion to Dec. 24 th . 

"It should be noted that every religion has a trinity, and major holidays are centered around the 
son/sun's travel and position to the hor-izon on sol-st-ice times" (pg. 56 'Cutting Through' 2). 

Sure, but you never note specifically to the reader in your 3 'Cutting Through' books where the 
various Trinitarian religious systems actually stem from: Babylon, where its first great King was 
immortalized forever by being attached to the whole Dec 25 th sun phenomenon, and then his 
wife was made into a Goddess along with him, bringing about the trinity of Nimrod/ 
Semiramis/Tammuz. The Bible, in fact, does nothing but lob spiritual grenades at that originary 
and historical trinity- so how can the Bible be connected to the Babylonian Mystery Religion? It 
does not mention Dec 25 th at all. 

"Alan: "That's why in fact they use the solar symbols in all of their religions including 
Christianity" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru April. 19 th 2005). 

Christianity is strictly the New Testament writings, and there are no symbols or pictures 
contained within it. Any artwork/symbols adopted by the Roman Church or other Christian 
groups do not prove that Christianity/the New Testament is connected to the Mystery Religion. 

"Alan: They explain that time comes in waves or great houses of zodiacs and so on, and at the 
end of an age the old type of man must die off or be killed off, because if they're allowed to 
come through with the elite who've evolved, the higher intellect ones and so on, then they'll 
bring down the higher intellect. Therefore they have to be eliminated at the end of an age and 
that's what that's all about, so that's why you have in the New Testament the allegory written in 
a story form of Jesus telling them to go and get a colt and the man will be carrying a pitcher of 
water. That's talking about Aquarius. The ride will last until Aquarius comes in. Aquarius of 
course pours out the water" (ALAN WATT "CUTTING THROUGH THE MATRIX" LIVE ON RBN 

Jesus tells his disciples that they will see a man carrying a pitcher of water: "Mar 14:13 And he 
sendeth forth two of his disciples, and saith unto them, Go ye into the city, and there shall meet 
you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him". "Luk 22:10 And he said unto them, Behold, 


when ye are entered into the city, there shall a man meet you, bearing a pitcher of water; 
follow him into the house where he entereth in". So a man carrying a pitcher of water connects 
the New T. to the Mystery Religion? Alan is connecting the dots. Why don't we just go straight 
to the source and find every single passage within the Bible that mentions the Mystery Religion 
(namely, the Babylonian trinity of Nimrod/Semiramis/Tammuz, as well as Lucifer & Astrology?). 
The Old T. is quite clear regarding its position on astrology: here's a quote where the narrator of 
the Book of Isaiah is castigating Babylon, the Babylonian mysteries, for using astrology: "Isa 
47:13 Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsels. Let now the astrologers, the 
stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall 
come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver 
themselves from the power of the flame: there shall not be a coal to warm at, nor fire to sit 
before it". 

4) Alan on how Jesus is the Sun being crucified on the Southern Cross for 3 days: 

"Alan: Even with Jesus with the 12 disciples, is Jesus and the 12 constellations and the 
sun traveling through them at different times of the year, and Scorpio stings them in the 
fall. That's the kiss of death and then he hangs on the cross for three days in mid-winter 
and rises again. It's all the same stuff down through the ages, including the 12 tribes of 
Israel. However, Revelations is a revealing. It was written by the Mystery Religion" 

Alan says that the Sun hangs on the Southern Cross constellation for 3 days at winter, but as 
we've already seen, from the Northern Hemisphere (where the Sun appears to die and then 
come back to life again- being that it appears to stop moving south)- it is impossible to have 
ever seen the Southern Cross anywhere in the sky. Also, the Romans invented crucifixion, how 
could the ancient priesthood have come up with a crucified-Sun-God-story ages ago? But to put 
it even more devastatingly succinct: if Jesus was really crucified, then none of it flies. 


Astrotheology Debunked: 

Zeitgeist Refuted Part 1: 

Zeitgeist Refuted by Eliot Nesch: 

Download the Free Astronomy Software Program 'Stellarium': 

Download E-Sword (free Bible software): 

Info about how the division of the 12 Zodiac signs started in Babylon (5 th Century B.C.) 


Where Does the Bible Mention the Babylonian Mystery Religion? 


This first great King of Babylon is mentioned directly in Genesis, but he also acquired new names after 
being apotheosized into a God and then exported throughout the world. In the Bible, he's referred to as 

'Tammuz' (the re-born Sun of the trinity/'the Golden Calf), 'Asshur', 'Baal', 'Baalim', 'Baalberith', 

'Molech', 'the Assyrian', 'Dagon' (for the Phillistines). ('Chaldeans' are Babylonians). In Genesis, we learn 

about his genealogy, the scope of his power, and how he united humans into building a Tower in ancient 

Sumer (Mesopotamia) as an affront to Yahweh. In the end, he loses as his plan for world domination 

gets thwarted by Yahweh's confounding of the Earth's single tongue. He's mentioned throughout the 

Old T. with Ashtaroth, his Goddess wife, and its obvious that their religion was huge as the Bible tells of 

many nations that worshiped him as 'Lord' ('Baal' means Lord). The B.M.R set up the priesthood, the 

ritual of child sacrifice, as well the practice of sexual orgies. 

From Robert Graves' 'Hebrew Myths': The Book of Genesis': "Nimrod's Hebraicized name (from the 
verb ma rod, 'to rebel') confirms his evil reputation. According to the seventh-century AD 'Chronicon 
Paschale', Persians called the constellation Orion 'Nimrod'; thus linking him with the rebel angel 
Shemhazai (see 18. f), and with the Greek hero Orion, also a 'mighty hunter' who offended his God" 
- pg 128 


Gen 10:8 And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth. 

He was a mighty hunter before the LORD: wherefore it is said, Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter 
before the LORD. And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in 
the land of Shinar. Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, 
and Calah, And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city. 

Gen 11:1 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they 
journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. And 
they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them throughly. And they had brick for 

stone, and slime had they for morter. And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, 
whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon 
the face of the whole earth. And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the 
children of men builded. And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one 
language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have 
imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not 
understand one another's speech. So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of 
all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the 
LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them 
abroad upon the face of all the earth. 

Isa 23:13 Behold the land of the Chaldeans; this people was not, t/7/the Assyrian founded it for 
them that dwell in the wilderness: they set up the towers thereof, they raised up the palaces 
thereof; and he brought it to ruin. 


Mic 5:6 And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the 

entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and 
when he treadeth within our borders. 

ISa 7:4 Then the children of Israel did put away Baalim and Ashtaroth, and served the LORD 

Eze 8:13 He said also unto me, Turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations that they 
do. Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the LORD'S house which was toward the north; 

and, behold, there sat women weeping for TamiTIUZ. Then said he unto me, Hast thou seen this, 
son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these. And he 
brought me into the inner court of the LORD'S house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the 
LORD, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward 

the temple of the LORD, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the Sun toward the 

Jdg 3:7 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgat the LORD their God, and 
served Baalim and the groves. 

Jer 19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings 
unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind. 

2Ki 23:5 And he put down the idolatrous priests, whom the kings of Judah had ordained to burn incense 
in the high places in the cities of Judah, and in the places round about Jerusalem; them also that burned 

incense unto Baal, to the sun, and to the moon, and to the planets, and to all the host of 



Deu 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or 
any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 

Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and 
is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and 
hateful bird. 

Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause 

their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them 
not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin. 

Jdg 3:7 And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD, and forgat the LORD their God, and 
served Baalim and the groves. 

2Ch 33:3 For he built again the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down, and he reared 
up altars for Baalim, and made groves, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served 

2Ch 34:4 And they brake down the altars of Baalim in his presence; and the images, that were on high 

above them, he cut down; and the groves, and the carved images, and the molten images, he 
brake in pieces, and made dust of them, and strowed it upon the graves of them that had 
sacrificed unto them. 

Other Names For "Nimrod" 




















EL -BAR meaning 

"God the Son" 




meaning "Lord" 




the fish-god 


Hos 11:2 As they called them, so they went from them: they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned 
incense to graven images. 


Jer 32:29 And the Chaldeans, that fight against this city, shall come and set fire on this city, and burn 

it with the houses, upon whose roofs they have offered incense unto Baal, and poured out drink 
offerings unto other gods, to provoke me to anger. 

Rev 18:21 And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, 
Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at 

2Ki 17:16 And they left all the commandments of the LORD their God, and made them molten images, 
even two calves, and made a grove, and worshipped all the host of heaven, and served Baal. 

Lev 18:21 And thou shalt not let any of thy seed pass through the fire to Molech, neither shalt thou 
profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 

Lev 20:2 Again, thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Whosoever he be of the children of Israel, or of 
the strangers that sojourn in Israel, that giveth any of his seed unto Molech; he shall surely be put to 
death: the people of the land shall stone him with stones. 

IKi 11:7 Then did Solomon build an high place for Chemosh, the abomination of Moab, in the hill that is 
before Jerusalem, and for Molech, the abomination of the children of Ammon. 

Rom 11:4 But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, 
who have not bowed the knee to the image o/Baal. 

Jdg 6:25 And it came to pass the same night, that the LORD said unto him, Take thy father's young 
bullock, even the second bullock of seven years old, and throw down the altar of Baal that thy father 
hath, and cut down the grove that is by it. 

Jdg 6:31 And Joash said unto all that stood against him, Will ye plead for Baal? will ye save him? he 
that will plead for him, let him be put to death whilst it is yet morning: if he be a god, let him plead for 
himself, because one hath cast down his altar. 

IKi 18:22 Then said Elijah unto the people, I, even I only, remain a prophet of the LORD; but Baal's 
prophets are four hundred and fifty men. 

IKi 18:40 And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of them escape. And they 
took them: and Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and slew them there. 

IKi 18:26 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called 

on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor 
any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. 


2Ki 10:28 Thus Jehu destroyed Baal out of Israel. 

2Ki 11:18 And all the people of the land went into the house of Baal, and brake it down; his altars and 
his images brake they in pieces thoroughly, and slew Mattan the priest of Baal before the altars. And the 
priest appointed officers over the house of the LORD. 

2Ki 23:4 And the king commanded Hilkiah the high priest, and the priests of the second order, 

and the keepers of the door, to bring forth out of the temple of the LORD all the vessels that were made 

for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven: and he burned them without 
Jerusalem in the fields of Kidron, and carried the ashes of them unto Bethel. 

Deu 12:3 And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with 
fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that 

Jdg 16:23 Then the lords of the Philistines gathered them together for to offer a great sacrifice unto 
DagOPI their god, and to rejoice: for they said, Our god hath delivered Samson our enemy into our 

ISa 5:7 And when the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, they said, The ark of the God of Israel 

shall not abide with us: for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god. 

Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of 
God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 

"The Awakening "is being moved from its site at Hains Point in Washington to a private development 
down the Potomac River in Prince George's County p Md. - Photo by Doug Mills 

Baal/Nimrod Coming Out of the Ground (Washington D.C) 



Semiramis, the Queen of Babylon (Nimrod's wife, and apparently, mother) was also known as Ishtar (in 
Egypt 'Uesat' (Isis)), and 'Baalti' (which meant 'My Lady' (Mea Domina, Maddonna)). In the Bible she's 
called 'the Goddess', 'Ashtaroth', 'the Queen of Heaven', 'the Lady of Kingdoms', 'the whore of Babylon', 
'daugher of the Chaldeans', and 'Diana'. 

From Robert Graves' 'Hebrew Myths': The Book of Genesis: "These prophets saw that Israel's 
national independence lay in an authoritarian monotheism, and ceaselessly declaimed against 
goddess-worship in the Canaanite sacred groves" (pg. 14 Hebrew Myths - Robert Graves and 
Raphael Patai - 1983). 

Isa 47:5 Sit thou silent, and get thee into darkness, daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt 
no more be called, The lady of kingdoms. 

Act 19:27 So that not only this our craft is in danger to be set at nought; but also that the temple of the 
great goddess Diana should be despised, and her magnificence should be destroyed, whom all Asia 
and the world worshippeth. 

ISa 7:4 Then the children of Israel did put away Baalim and Ashtaroth, and served the LORD 

IKi 11:5 For Solomon went after Ashtoreth the goddess of the Zidonians, and after Milcom the 
abomination of the Ammonites. 


IKi 11:33 Because that they have forsaken me, and have worshipped Ashtoreth the goddess of the 
Zidonians, Chemosh the god of the Moabites, and Milcom the god of the children of Ammon, and have 
not walked in my ways, to do that which is right in mine eyes, and to keep my statutes and my 
judgments, as did David his father. 

Rev 17:5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE 
MOTHER OF HARLOTS and abominations of the earth. 

Jer 7:18 The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to 
make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may 
provoke me to anger. 


Semiramis - Queen of Heaven 
Semi rami 5 - Mother of god 

Jer 44:18 But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink 
offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the 

Jer 44:25 Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye and your wives have both spoken 
with your mouths, and fulfilled with your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have 

vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her: ye will 
surely accomplish your vows, and surely perform your vows. 


The Freemason / Nimrod / Baal / Lucifer- Connection 

Still to this day, the Freemasons pour out corn, wine, and oil at their various ceremonies. In ancient 
times, worshippers of Baal/Nimrod did this, but the Freemasons deny worshipping anything (let alone 
Baal). At a park near Washington D.C, a massive statue of Baal can be seen bursting out of the ground, 
as if rising from the dead. But above Baal/Nimrod (via their own writings), we know that the Freemasons 
and the Theosophists worship Lucifer (leader of the 'hosts of heaven' (the fallen angels), 'the God of this 
World', 'the God of Forces'). Masons and Theosophists at the highest levels adore Lucifer, but the Bible 
exposes him, his history, his deceptions, links him to the Babylonian Mystery Religion, and in Isaiah 14 
and Revelation, proclaims his utter annihilation. So if they wrote it, the ancient priesthood/ Freemasons, 
as Alan claims- then why expose themselves & their own religion so blatantly? 

b tfwnf, |Hitlfc fflfoiili. and local tto«i boh mi. K. W, JUlifct M. Mmd k, *put>- piotf fete* of M.W. Pmic* fetf fr»d Ufet. 
MAJL, jiIMh com ma tftt <«bh x!dm of WfeOttfy Fir* fcfartmerrl'j m fititam K Ofl Cijitfi Stiwt. Silwtiir'i **c*iktf ***» S* 
nVstttKJti Huybnd hMoty (htt Mh If* M. <K. ftiwt Mm CrinA Lulgrt, F.U.HL, Mid UwGrhj Lxfet pf HjfytwKl, *J,4JLM_ | 
mm i prtft <*r*rn*fij' bcBrthtf. 

Hos 2:8 For she did not know that I gave her corn, and wine, and oil, and multiplied her silver 
and gold, which they prepared for Baal. 


2Ki 21:3 For he built up again the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; and he reared 
up altars for Baal, and made a grove, as did Ahab king of Israel; and worshipped all the host of 
heaven, and served them. 

Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and 
is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and 
hateful bird. 

Here, Nimrod's Babylonian Religion is connected with Lucifer, the rebellious-angel, whose 

eventual destruction is vividly prophesized. This kind of stuff would never get written by the 

Freemasons as they love and adore him as their liberator and saviour (& they believe in him 

as a 'God of Forces' (seen via their own writings). 

Rockefeller Plaza, New York (location of Lucis Trust) 

Isa 14:1 For the LORD will have mercy on Jacob, and will yet choose Israel, and set them in their own 
land: and the strangers shall be joined with them, and they shall cleave to the house of Jacob. And 
the people shall take them, and bring them to their place: and the house of Israel shall possess them 
in the land of the LORD for servants and handmaids: and they shall take them captives, whose 
captives they were; and they shall rule over their oppressors. And it shall come to pass in the day 
that the LORD shall give thee rest from thy sorrow, and from thy fear, and from the hard bondage 

wherein thou wast made to serve, That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of 

Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased! The LORD hath broken 
the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers. He who smote the people in wrath with a 
continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth. The whole 
earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing. Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the 
cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us. Hell from 
beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the 
chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. All they shall 


speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? Thy 
pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and 

the worms cover thee. How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning! how art 
thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! For thou hast said in thine heart, I 
will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount 
of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be 
like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee 
shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to 
tremble, that did shake kingdoms; That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities 
thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners? All the kings of the nations, even all of them, lie 
in glory, every one in his own house. But thou art cast out of thy grave like an abominable branch, 
and as the raiment of those that are slain, thrust through with a sword, that go down to the stones 
of the pit; as a carcase trodden under feet. Thou shalt not be joined with them in burial, because 
thou hast destroyed thy land, and slain thy people: the seed of evildoers shall never be renowned. 
Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess 
the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of 
hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD. I will 
also make it a possession for the bittern, and pools of water: and I will sweep it with the besom of 
destruction, saith the LORD of hosts. The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, 

so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand: That I will break the Assyrian in 
my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, 
and his burden depart from off their shoulders. This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole 
earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations. For the LORD of hosts hath 
purposed, and who shall disannul it? 

Dan 11:38 But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew 
not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things. 

Eze 28:13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the 
sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and 
the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in 
the day that thou wast created. Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: 
thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones 
of fire. Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou was created, till iniquity was found in 

2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 

Luk 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lighting fall from heaven. 


Rev 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which 
deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 

Rev 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and 
the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as 
soon as it was born. 

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest 
the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. 

2Th 2:9 Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying 

Joh 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer 
from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh 
a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. 

Rev 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in 
the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon. 

Rev 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the 
beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 

Eph 6:12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, 

against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 

The Masons also revere Cain as the first scientists/metal worker/holder of knowledge/possible son of 
the serpent- and in the New T., his lineage is illuminated: 

Un 3:12 Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew 

he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother's righteous. 


Quotes from Famous Freemasons, Theosophists, & Authors 

(in chronological order) 

Eliphas Levi (mo-1875) 

19 th Century Mystical Freemason / Creator of the Baphomet (Goat of Mendes) Engraving: 

"What is more absurd and more impious than to attribute the name of Lucifer to the devil, that is, to 
personified evil. The intellectual Lucifer is the spirit of intelligence and love; it is the paraclete, it is the 
Holy Spirit, while the physical Lucifer is the great agent of universal magnetism" (The Mysteries of 
Magic' - pg. 428). 

Albert Pike 


33 rd Degree Sovereign Grand Commander of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in America from 1859 to 


"Masonry is identical to the ancient Mysteries" ('Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted 
Scottish Rite of Freemasonry' - pg. 624). 


"Baphomet—the Gnostics held that it (universal agent) composed the igneous (pertaining to fire) body of 
the Holy Spirit, and it was adored in the secret rites of the Sabbat or the Temple under the hieroglyphic 
figure of Baphomet or the hermaphroditic goat ofMendes" ('Morals and Dogma' - pg. 734). 

"Lucifer, the Light-bearer! Strange and mysterious name to give to the Spirit of darkness! Lucifer, the Son 
of the Morning! Is it he who bears the Light, and with its splendors intolerable, blinds, feeble, sensual, or 
selfish souls? Doubt it not!" ('Morals and Dogma' - pg. 321). 

"That which we must say to a crowd is- We worship a God, but it is the God that one adores without 
superstition. To you, Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the 
Brethren of the 32 nd , 31 st , and 30 th degrees- The Masonic Religion should be, by all of us initiates of the 
high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine. If Lucifer were not God, would Adonay 
whose deeds prove his cruelty, perfidy, and hatred of man, barbarism and repulsion for science, would 
Adonay and his priests calumniate him? Yes, Lucifer is God, and unfortunately Adonay is also God. For 
the eternal law is that there is no light without shade, no beauty without ugliness, no white without 
black, for the absolute can only exist as two Gods: darkness being necessary to light to serve as its foil as 
the pedestal is necessary to the statue, and the brake to the locomotive. In analogical and universal 
dynamics one can only lean on that which will resist. Thus the Universe is balanced by two forces which 
maintain its equilibrium: the force of attraction and that of repulsion. These two forces exist in physics, 
philosophy and religion. And the scientific reality of the divine dualism is demonstrated by the 
phenomenon of polarity and by the universal law of sympathies and antipathies. That is what the 
intelligent disciples of Zoroaster, as well as after them, the Gnostics, the Manicheans and the Templars 
have admitted, as the only logical metaphysical conception, the system of the two divine principles 
fighting eternally, and one cannot believe the one inferior in power to the other. Thus the doctrine of 
Satanism is a heresy; and the true and pure philosophical religion is the belief in Lucifer, the equal of 
Adonay; but Lucifer, the God of Light and God of Good, is struggling for humanity against Adonay, the 
God of Darkness and Evil" ('Instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the World', July 14 th 1889. 
Recorded by A.C De La Rive in La Femme et I'Enfant dans la Franc-Ma connerie Universelle - pg. 588). 

"// the buckler of Satan did not stay the flight of Michael's lance, the power of the Archangel would be 
lost in the void, or would necessarily display and manifest itself by an infinite destruction, directed from 
above to below. And if the foot of Michael did not arrest Satan in his ascent, Satan would go to dethrone 
God, or to lose himself in the abysses of height. Satan is then necessary to Michael, as the pedestal to the 
statue; and Michael to Satan, as the brake to the locomotive. In analogical and universal dynamics we 
rest only on that which resists. Wherefore, as we have said before, the Universe is balanced by two 
forces, which maintain it in equilibrium; and the force which attracts, and that which repels. This is the 
equilibrium of the mountain of gold, which the Gods on one side, and the Demons on the other, hold tied 
by the symbolic Serpent of India; and its scientific reality is demonstrated by the phenomena of Polarity, 
and by universal law of Sympathies and Antipathies...." (Legendas XIX*-XXX* - pg. 40-44). 

"The Third World war must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" 
of the "llluminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be 
conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) 


mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile, the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be 
constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion. We 
shall unleash the Nihilists and Atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all 
its horror will show clearly to the nations the effects of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the 
most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the minority of 
revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude disillusioned with 
Christianity, whose deistic spirits will be from that moment without compass, anxious for an ideal, but 
without knowing where to render adoration, will receive the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out 
in the public view, a manifestation which will result from the general reactionary movement which will 
follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time" 
('Letter to 33 rd Degree Italian Grand Master Guiseppie Mazzini (August 15 th 1871) - Archives British 
Museum, London). 

Helena Blavatsky (issi -is9i) 

32 n Degree Freemason of the Ancient and Accepted Primitive Rite of the Grand Orient of France & 

founder of the 1875 Theosophical Society': 

"The shadow of the Unknown and the Incognizable Deity in Space. But in antiquity and reality, Lucifer, or 
Lucifems, is the name of the angelic Entity presiding over the light of truth as over the light of 
day... .Demon est Deus inversus: that is to say, through every point of Infinite Space thrills the magnetic 
and electrical currents of animate Nature, the life-giving and death-giving waves, for death on earth 
becomes life on another plane. Lucifer is divine and terrestrial light, the "Holy Ghost" and "Satan", at one 
and the same time" (The Secret Doctrine' - Vol. 2 - pg. 512-513). 

"The devil is now called the Darkness by the Church, whereas, in the Bible he is called the "Son of God" 
(see Job), the bright star of the early morning, Lucifer (see Isaiah). There is a whole philosophy of 
dogmatic craft in the reason why the first arch-angel, who sprang from the depths of Chaos, was called 
Lux (Lucifer), the "Luminous Son of the Morning", or man-vantarie Dawn. He was transformed by the 


Church into Lucifer or Satan, because he is higher and older than Jehovah, and had to be sacrificed to the 
new dogma" (The Secret Doctrine* - Vol. 1 - pg. 70-71). 

"Lucifer represents. .Life. .Thought. .Progress. .Civilization. .Liberty. .Independence. .Lucifer is the Logos. .the 
Serpent.the Saviour" (The Secret Doctrine' Vol. 2 - pg 171, 225, 255). 

"It is Satan who is the God of our planet and the only God" (The Secret Doctrine Vol. 1 - pg 215, 216, 
220, 245, 255). 

"The appellation Sa'tan, in Hebrew Satan, the Adversary.. .belongs by right to the first and cruelest 
"Adversary" of all other Gods-Jehovah; not to the serpent which spoke only words of sympathy and 
wisdom" (The Secret Doctrine' Vol. 3 - pg 386). 

"Once the key to Genesis is in our hands, the scientific and symbolical Kabbala unveils the secret. The 
Great Serpent of the Garden of Eden and the "Lord God" are identical" (The Secret Doctrine' Vol. 2 - pg 

"Satan, the Serpent of Genesis is the real creator and benefactor, the Father of Spiritual mankind. For it is 
he... who opened the eyes [of Adam]. ..And he who was the first to whisper, "in the day ye eat thereof, ye 
shall be as Elohim, knowing good and evil"- can only be regarded in the light of a savior.. ..he still remains 
in Esoteric Truth the ever loving messenger.. .who conferred on us spiritual instead of physical 
immortality" (The Secret Doctrine, Vol.3 - pg 246). 

"One of the most hidden secrets involves the so-called fall of Angels. Satan and his rebellious host will 
thus prove to have become the direct Saviors and Creators of divine man. Thus Satan, once he ceases to 
be viewed in the superstitious spirit of the church, grows into the grandiose image. It is Satan who is the 
God of our planet and the only God. Satan (or Lucifer) represents the Centrifugal Energy of the Universe 
this ever-living symbol of self-sacrifice for the intellectual independence of humanity" (The Secret 
Doctrine: pg. 215, 216, 220, 245, 255, 533). 

Aleister Crowley (1875-1947) 

33 rd Degree Freemason (self-proclaimed 'the Beast/the father of Modern Satanism was recruited by 
Ruess into the OTO in 1912 (the true mystical arm of Freemasonry: 


'Hymn to Lucifer' by Aleister Crowley 

Ware, nor of good or ill, what ain hath act? 

Without its climax, death, what savior hath 

Life? an impeccable machine, exact 

He paces an inane and pointless path 

To glut brute appetites, his soul content 

How tedious were he fit to comprehend 

Himself! More, this our noble element 

Of fire in nature, love in spirit, unkenned 

Life hath no spring, no axle, and no end. 

His body a blood-ruby radiant 

With noble passion, sun-souled Lucifer 

Swept through the dawn colossal, swift aslant 

On Eden's imbecile perimeter. 

He blessed nonentity with every curse 

And spiced with sorrow the dull soul of sense, 

Breath life into the sterile universe, 

With Love and Knowledge drove out of innocence 

The Key of Joy is disobedience. 

"24: The best blood is of the moon, monthly: then the fresh blood of a child. 51: With my hawk's head I 
peck at the eyes of Jesus as he hangs upon the cross. 60: There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt" (The 
Book of the Law' - Chapter 3 - 1904) - apparently, Crowley's wife channeled the entity Aiwass/Horus in 
Cairo for Crowley as he dictated everything said. All of the instruction received became known as the 
'Book of Law'. 

Alice Bailey (i88o 1949) 

Freemason; married 33 r Degree Scottish Rite Freemason Foster Bailey; former leader of the 

Theosophical Society'; huge intellectual force behind the United Nations; founder of Lucis Trust (1920); 

the Arcane School (1922); World Goodwill (1932); Triangles (1937); the Ascended Master 'Djwahl Kuhl' 

(aka. 'the Tibetan') apparently made contact with her in 1919, and between 1919 and 1949, she wrote 

24 books (of which 19 were apparently written by Djwahl Kuhl, who 'overshadowed' himself upon 



"Emphasis should be laid on the evolution of humanity, with particular attention to its goal, perfection" 
('The Externalization of the Hierarchy' 1924: pg. 516). 

"The objective is the helping of the Great Ones and the rendering to Them of that intelligent assistance 
which will make Their plans for humanity materialize" ('The Externalization of the Hierarchy' 1924: pg. 

Manly Palmer Hall(i9oi-i99o) 

33 r Degree Scottish Rite Freemason, founder of the 'Philosophical Research Society' in 1934, and called 

the 'Greatest Masonic Philosopher': 

"When the Mason learns that the key to the warrior on the block is the proper application of the dynamo 
of living power, he has learned the Mystery of his Craft. The seething energies of Lucifer are in his hands 
and before he may step onward and upward, he must prove his ability to properly apply this energy" 
('The Lost keys of Freemasonry': pg. 48). 

Benjamin Creme(i922) 

-theosophist, author, founder of Share International (1975), & channeller/representative of Lord 
Maitreya the Great World Teacher & New Christ (someone expected for by all of the major religions. 
Christians call him Christ, Jews, the Messiah, Hindus, Lord Krishna, Buddhists, Maitreya Buddha, and 

Muslims, the Imam Mahdi): 


"In the coming age many, many people will see God as Sanat Kumara, the Lord of the World, who is a 
real physical being in etheric matter on Shamballa" (The Reappearance of the Christ and the Masters 
of Wisdom' 1980: pg. 135). 

David Spanglera945 

New Age author/promoter: 

"The light that reveals to us the path to the Christ comes from Lucifer. He is the light giver. He is aptly 
named the Morning Star because it is his light that heralds for man the dawn of the greater 
consciousness. He is present when that dawn is realized" ('Reflections on the Christ', Scotland, Findhorn 
Publications, 1977: pg. 45). 


"Lucifer comes to give us the final gift of wholeness. If we accept it, then he is free and we are free, that 
is the Luciferic Initiation. It is one that many people now, and in the days ahead, will be facing, for it is an 
initiation into the New Age" ('Reflections on the Christ' 1981: pg. 45). 

Constance Cumbey (1944- 

-key author/initial exposerof the New Age-theosophical-Maitreya-UN agenda: 

"See The Externalization of the Hierarchy by Alice A. Bailey. You will find the freeze campaign outlined as 
step No. 9 towards implementing the "New World Order. " This is found on page 190-191. Turn to page 
548 and you will see an extollation of the atomic bomb as something developed by the occult "Hierarchy" 
and the plans for use or threatened use on obstinate religious groups who will not relinquish their right 
to speak out on political/social issues" ('The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow' 1983 - pg. 40). 

"See The Externalization of the Hierarchy, page 107, which states that Lucifer is the ruler of humanity. In 
a November 9, 1982 radio interview over WLAC, Nashville, Benjamin Creme told the entire Bible belt that 
Lucifer came to planet earth from planet Venus 18-1/2 million years ago and made the supreme sacrifice 
for us" ('The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow' 1983 - pg. 42). 

From The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow 1 1983 pg. 13: 

"Millions around the globe awoke to a great surprise on April 25 th 1982. They opened their newspapers 
only to be greeted with fullpage display ads brazenly proclaiming: 

The Christ Is Now Here 

"From Rome to Jerusalem, from Kuwait to Karachi and from New York to Los Angeles - in more than 20 
major cities - newspaper readers blinked in shocked disbelief as they tried to digest this particular piece 
of "news" along with their breakfast. The $500,000-plus ad campaign featured the following copy": 


"The World Has Had Enough ... Of Hunger, Injustice, War. In Answer To Our Call For Help, As World 
Teacher For All Humanity, The Christ Is Now Here. 

How Will We Recognize Him? 

Look for a modern man concerned with modern problems - political, economic, and social. Since July, 
1977, the Christ has been emerging as a spokesman for a group or community in a well-known modern 
country. He is not a religious leader, but an educator in the broadest sense of the word - pointing the 
way out of our present crisis. We will recognize Him by His extraordinary spiritual potency, the 
universality of His viewpoint, and His love for all humanity. He comes not to judge but to aid and inspire. 

Who Is The Christ? 

Throughout history, humanity's evolution has been guided by a group of enlightened men, the Masters 
of Wisdom. They have remained largely in the remote desert and mountain places of earth, working 
mainly through their disciples who live openly in 

the world. This message of the Christ's reappearance has been given primarily by such a disciple trained 
for his task for over 20 years. At the center of this "Spiritual Hierarchy" stands the World Teacher, LORD 
MAITREYA, known by Christians as the CHRIST. And as Christians await the Second Coming, so the Jews 
await the MESSIAH, the Buddhists the FIFTH BUDDHA, the Moslems the IMAM MAHDI, and the Hindus 
await KRISHNA. These are all names for the one individual. His presence in the world guarantees there 
will be no third World War. 

What Is He Saying? 

"My task will be to show you how to live together peacefully as brothers. This is simpler than you 
imagine, My friends, for it requires only the acceptance of sharing. "How can you be content with the 
modes within which you now live: when millions starve and die in squalor; when the rich parade their 
wealth before the poor; when each man is his neighbor's enemy; when no man trusts his brother? 
"Allow me to show you the way forward into a simpler life where no man lacks; where no two days are 
alike; where the Joy of Brotherhood manifests through all men. "Take your brother's need as the 
measure for your action and solve the problems of the world." 

"He has not as yet declared His true status, and His location is known to only a very few disciples. One of 
these has announced that soon the Christ will acknowledge His identity and within the next two months 
will speak to humanity through a worldwide television and radio broadcast. His message will be heard 
inwardly, telepathically, by all people in their own language. From that time, with His help, we will build 
a new world". 

"Without sharing there can be no justice; Without justice there can be no peace; Without peace there 
can be no future" 


"The ads went on to list four information centers strategically scattered about the globe: Amsterdam, 
London, New York City and North Hollywood, California" (The Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow' 1983 - 
Preface pg. 2-5). 

"Through transmissions to Benjamin Creme, Maitreya has claimed that Jesus is one of his disciples. This 
can be documented in Creme's books, The Reappearance of Christ, and The Masters of Wisdom (The 
Hidden Dangers of the Rainbow' 1983 - pg. 13). 

Fritz Springmeier(i955 ) 

framed and jailed Christian NWO researcher: 

"Alice Bailey in her writings, especially the book The Externalization of The Hierarchy quite openly spells 

out The Plan to bring in a New Age One World Religion. Alice Bailey needs no introduction to followers of 
the New Age Movement. Her 24 New Age books, her organization Lucis Trust (originally named Lucifer 
Trust), her Arcane School, and the Find horn community in Scotland (started by her disciples Peter and 
Eileen Caddy and Dorothy McLean) are present-day reminders of the immense impact she and her 32° 
Mason husband had on the New Age Movement. 1 She is credited with starting over one hundred New 

Age groups. She worked for the Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare in 1958 setting up educational 
goals, and her writings were used in the new Globalism 2000 curriculum (already tried in some areas) 

and soon-to-be used across the board in the US public schools. Alice Bailey started the Arcane School to 
teach New Age disciples the principles of the Plan to bring in the New Order. The Arcane School is located 

in Europe and America, and headquartered in New York City. A major part of this Plan is for mankind to 

recognize the Spiritual Hierarchy of the planet. This Spiritual Hierarchy is headed by the Spirit Being 

Sanat Kumera (the first name is a scrambling of the name Satan), and helped by the Great White 

Brotherhood. Her writings were given to her by the same Great White Brotherhood that Masons, like 

Manly P. Hall (33°), say direct Masonry. Other New Age leaders, for instance Elizabeth Clare Prophet in 
her book The Great White Brotherhood in the Culture History and Religion of America, also believe the 
Great White Brotherhood has been controlling religion. Various Rosicrucians claim to be guided by the 

Great White Brotherhood too.2 THE EXPECTATIONS FOR MASONRY BY NEW AGE LEADERS According to 


Alice Bailey, the Masonic movement will be the religion of the New System. Benjamin Creme, another big 

New Age leader, also believes Freemasonry with a revitalized Christian Church will be the religion of the 

New Age. 3 Lola Davis, another New Age leader, also sees Freemasonry as the New Age Religion (Dark 

Secrets of the New Age, p. 273). Bailey wrote in 1957, "The Masonic movement... is the custodian of the 

law; it is the home of the Mysteries and the seat of initiation. It holds in its symbolism the ritual of Deity, 

and the way of salvation is pictorially preserved in its work. ... It is afar more occult organization than 

can be realized, and is intended to be the training school for the coming advanced occultists. In its 

ceremonials lie hid the wielding of the forces connected with the growth and life of the kingdoms of 

nature and the unfoldment of the divine aspects in man" ('Be As Wise As Serpents' 1991 - pg.47). 


William Cooper (1943-2001) 

author/Christian NWO-exposer and popular patriot-radio broadcaster, was killed by the police in front 
of his house in Nov of 2001 (one month after the 9/11 attacks. 

"/ tell you now that Freemasonry is one of the most wicked and terrible organizations upon this Earth. 
The Masons are major players in the struggle for world domination. The 33 rd degree is split into two. One 
split contains the core of the Luciferian llluminati and the other contains those who have no knowledge 
of it whatsoever" ('Beyond a Pale Horse' - pg. 78). 

Arthur C. Clarke (1917-2008) 


In the sequel to Clarke's classic '2001: A Space Odyssey' (published in 1968), '2010' features a chapter 
titled 'Lucifer Rising'. Within it, Jupiter becomes ignited into a star, and mankind names it 'Lucifer' (the 


Light-bringer) because its illuminating light forever puts an end to night-time on Earth (the old era of 
fear, doubt, and suspicion)- thus giving humanity access to their true intellect and potential (as Dave 
said: "something wonderful is going to happen"). Clarke's 1972 novel 'Rendezvous with Rama' reveals 
him to be a predictive programmer of sorts: "At 0940 GMT on the morning of September 11 th in the 
exceptionally beautiful summer of the year 2077, most of the inhabitants of Europe saw a dazzling 
fireball.... Somewhere above Austria it began to disintegrate.... The cities of Padua and Verona were 
wiped from the face of the earth, and the last glories of Venice sank forever..." (the short novel 
'Rendevous with Rama' - 1972 pg. 1) 

The Masonic Mystery Religion is all about the Sun/Moon (Male/Female) and a Son resulting from their 
union (Tammuz/Horus/Perfected Man/2001's Star-child) as well as the use of astro-theology. 

Peter Joseph 

NWO-Propagandist/Theosophist/leader of the 'Zeitgeist Movement': 

In his introduction to the 'Zeitgeist 2009 Orientation Lecture for the Zeitgeist Movement', Peter Joseph 
quoted indirectly from Blavatsky's book 'Key to Theosophy': "The Zeitgeist movement is not a political 
movement. It does not recognize visionary notions such as nations, governments, races, religions, creeds, 
or class. Rather, we see the world as one organism, as the human species as a single family". From 
Blavatsky's 'The Key to Theosophy' Section 3,12: "ENQUIRER. What are the objects of the 


"Theosophical Society"? THEOSOPHIST....T0 form the nucleus of a Universal Brotherhood of Humanity 
without distinction of race, colour, or creed... "ENQUIRER. .The Theosophical Society is not, then, a 
political organization? THESOPHIST. Certainly not. It is international in the highest sense in that its 
members comprise men and women of all races, creeds, and forms of thought, who work together for 
one object, the improvement of humanity, but as a society, it takes absolutely no part in any national or 
party politics". In the next Zeitgeist film, Peter Joseph began to use the term 'intellectual materialism', a 
term first propounded by Blavatsky in her 'Lucifer Magazine'. Zeitgeist Addendum - 2008: "The 
emergence of the symbiotic aspects of natural law, the emerging nature of reality, is that all systems, 
whether it is knowledge, society, technology, philosophy, or any other creation, will when uninhibited 
undergo free, perpetual change, likewise the future will contain technologies, realizations, and social 
structures that we cannot even fathom in the present. And it is this awareness that reminds us. and leads 
us, on a continuous path into growth and progress. Static and empirical knowledge does not exist; rather 
it is the insight of the emergence of all systems we must recognize. This means that we must be open to 
new information of all kinds, even if it threatens our current belief system, and hence, identities. The fact 
is there is no such thing as a smart human being, for it is merely a matter of time before their ideas are 
updated, changed, or eradicated. And this tendency to blindly hold on to a belief system, sheltering it 
from new and possibly transforming information, is nothing less than a form of 'intellectual 

LUCIS TrUSt on 'Lucifer 1 ( 

"Both 'Lucifer' and 'Lucis' come from the same root, lucis being the Latin generative case meaning of 
light. The Bailey's reasons for choosing the original name are not known to us, but we can only surmise 
that they, like the great teacher H.P Blavatsky, for whom they had enormous respect, sough to elicit a 
deeper understanding of the sacrifice made by Lucifer. Alice and Foster Bailey were serious students and 
teachers ofTheosophy, a spiritual tradition which views Lucifer as one of the solar Angels, those 
advanced Beings Who Theosophy says descended (thus "the fall") from Venus to our planet eons ago to 
bring the principle of mind to what was then animal-man. In the theosophical perspective, the descent of 
these solar Angels was not a fall of sin or disgrace but rather an act of great sacrifice, as is suggested in 
the name "Lucifer" which means light-bearer" - 'The Esoteric Meaning of Lucifer' 


"December 25th was celebrated 
as Nimrod's birthday. 
Generally, all mankind is fast asleep, 
dreaming this 
old Babylonian dream." 

—The Story Of Nimrod. 

As It Relates To Christmas And Easter 

by Wilhelm J Wolfaardt 

The First Human sun -god 

Born on 

*e mi r amis 



of Ancient Babylon 

"The Lord of Christmas" 

Trie Entire Earth is Lying in the Flower 
of Ancient Babylon and the spell cast 

by Nimrod and his mother. 

! Lydian Empire 
Greek Influence and C 

The EtiTal Empires in. Jeremiah's Time 

{^"-orris., 1>. Thaine: Logos 3>eLi*x:e Map Set. Oak Harbor,, W.A. - Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1&97 cl995) 


From Peter Goodgame's 'The Giza Discovery Vol 1 - pg. 13-15 - 2007: "According to 

the Genesis account God supernaturally "confused the language of the whole world." This made it 
impossible for the Tower of Babel to be completed and also made it necessary for the different tribes, all 
speaking different languages, to branch out and claim their own territories for habitation. The Sumerian 
account of this event can be pieced together by clues found within a large epic narrative of 636 lines 
known as Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (c.2000 BC). Within this epic poem there is a section known 
as the "Incantation of Nudimmud" located in lines 136-155. These lines speak about a long-ago age 
when human beings lived without fear, when man was united in monotheistic worship, and when 
human speech was unified in a single language. This text is important because it clearly points to Enki 
(Nudimmud) as the force behind the scenes who helped to bring about the confusion of tongues [14]: 
Once, then, there was no snake, there was no scorpion, there was no hyena, there was no lion, there 
was no wild dog, no wolf, there was no fear, no terror: human had no rival Once, then, the lands of 
Shubur-Hamazi, polyglot Sumer, that land great with the me of overlordship, Uri, the land with 
everything just so, the land Martu, resting securely, the whole world— the people as one— to Enlil in one 
tongue gave voice. Then did the contender— the en (lord) the contender— the master the contender— 
the king the contender— the en the contender— the master the contender— the king Enki, en of hegal, 
the one with the unfailing words, en of cunning, the shrewd one of the land, sage of the gods, gifted in 
thinking, the en of Eridu, change the speech of their mouths, he having set up contention in it, in the 
human speech that had been one ( ) The first 
century historian Josephus in his Antiquities of the Jews explains that the building of the Tower of Babel 
was an act of disobedience towards God and that those who worked on it were motivated by their own 
selfish desires and pride. He also explains that its chief proponent was a king by the name of Nimrod, 
the son of Cush and grandson of Ham. Nimrod appears within the Table of Nations as the Bible's very 
first potentate: "Cush was the father of Nimrod, who grew to be a mighty warrior on the earth. He was a 
mighty hunter before the LORD; that is why it is said, 'Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the LORD.' 
The first centers of his kingdom were Babylon, Erech, Akkad and Calneh, in Shinar. From that land he 
went to Assyria, where he built Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen, which is between Nineveh and 
Calah; that is the great city." (Genesis 10:8-12, NIV) The figure known in the Bible as Nimrod, who 
opposed the God of the Old Testament, was known to the Sumerians as Enmerkar. He is the hero of the 
Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta epic. In Hebrew the four letters that make up the name Nimrod roughly 
translate to n-m-r-d. In Sumerian the name Enmer translates to n-m-r, while the suffix -kar simply means 


"hunter." In the Bible he is "Nimrod the Hunter" and in Sumerian myth he is "Enmer the Hunter." After 
the Great Flood the Sumerian King List gives the kings who ruled the First Dynasty of Uruk. First on the 
list is the king Meskiagkasher who, as we explained in Part Four, was in fact the Biblical Cush. The 
second name given is that of Enmerkar [15]: "Enmerkar, son of Meskiagkasher, king of Uruk, the one 
who built Uruk - reigned 420 years..." The Sumerian King List records that Enmerkar built Uruk, and 
according to Genesis the center of Nimrod's kingdom was Babylon (Babel) and Erech, which is Uruk 
(modern-day "Iraq"). Enmerkar and the Shrine of the Abzu and the epic poem Enmerkar and the Lord of 
Aratta tells the story of Enmerkar's plan to build a temple to the goddess Inanna in Uruk, and his 
attempts to force the neighboring mountain kingdom of Aratta to provide all of the necessary building 
materials. In addition to this project, Enmerkar was also engaged in renovating and greatly expanding 
Enki's shrine that was located in Eridu. It is this project which David Rohl believes was recorded in 
Genesis as the attempt to build the Tower of Babel. According to David Rohl, the references in Genesis 
10 and 11 to the city of "Babel" (Babylon) should be understood as references to Eridu. The original 
Sumerian name for the cult headquarters of Enki in Eridu was, which means "mighty place." 
When the sacred precinct of Babylon was built for Marduk a thousand years later it was also known as, but it was known primarily by its Akkadian name of Bab-ilu. In other words, Bab-ilu equates to, and the original was located not in Babylon, but in Eridu. Here is how Rohl explains it, 
"( is otherwise known as Eridu - the very first royal capital in Sumer and the residence of the god 
of the abyss, Enki. Indeed, it seems that the sacred precinct at Babylon was named after that original, even going so far as to call the temple dedicated to Marduk, E-sagila or the 'lofty house' and also 
known as the 'mooring post of heaven and earth', after the original tower temple at Eridu. So, the 
biblical Tower of Babel/Nun. ki was not the second millennium Old Babylonian ziggurat at Babylon but 
rather the prototype third millennium ziggurat built at Eridu/ in the Late Uruk period." [16] 


I. The Sumerians - Their History, Culture, and Character, SamuelNoah Kramer, 1963, pp. 33,72 2. From 3. Myths of Enki, the Crafty God, Samuel Noah 
Kramer, 1989, pp. 32-33 4. Sumerian Mythology, Samuel Noah Kramer, 1944, pp.72-73also see http://www.sacred- 5. Myths of Enki, the Crafty God, Samuel Noah Kramer, 1989, p. 39 

6. Ibid, pp.41-42 7. Ibid, p.42 8. Ibid, pp.43-44 9. Ibid, p.100 10. Ibid, p.123 

II. Sumerian Mythology, Samuel Noah Kramer, 1944, pp. 51-53 and 101-103 12. Legend - the Genesis of 
Civilisation, David Rohl, 1998, p. 200 13. Sumerian Mythology, Samuel Noah Kramer, 1944 from: 14. Myths of Enki, the Crafty God, Samuel 
Noah Kramer, 1989, pp. 88-89 15. See 

16. The Lost Testament, David Rohl, 2002, p.66". 


Appendix - Velikovsky on the 'Ras Shamra Tablets 1 

Here are 4 excerpts from Immanuel Velikovsky's legendary historical/archaeological work 'Ages 
in Chaos' concerning other important tablets found at Ras Shamra in Northern Syria, which are 
even older than the Amarna Letters (14 th Century B.C). They shed some crucial light on the age 
of Hebrew and its relation to Canaanite: 

1) pg. 187: "The third language of the Ras Shamra tablets in cuneiform (Sumerian and Akkadian being 
the first two) did not long retain its secret. The large tablets were apparently written in an alphabetic 
script Their cuneiform could not be an ideographic or syllabic script, for a syllabic script like Akkadian 
uses hundreds of different signs, but alphabetic script only a few; and in this third script there were only 
thirty different characters. An example of the simplification of the cuneiform script was already known to 
the scholars: the Persians in the sixth century had used cuneiform for an alphabet of thirty-six characters 
(1) The bright idea came simultaneously to more than one scholar (2) that it might be ancient Hebrew 
written in cuneiform. An attempt to substitute Hebrew letters for cuneiform signs was successful, and 
before the scholarly world were tablets in a legible language. Some of the texts were even re-edited by 
modern scholars in Hebrew characters (3). Reading was facilitated by strokes placed after each word by 
the scribes of Ras Shamra-Ugarit The Cyprian script of the sixth century has the same characteristic 
stroke after each word, and this similarity was stressed, but it was asserted that, before this peculiarity 
returned, more than six hundred years had passed (4). Again six hundred years! As in the case of the 
sepulchral chambers, it required six hundred years of latency before the Cypriotes started to imitate their 
neighbors only sixty miles away. With an eagerness comparable only to the avaricious excitement of 
discoverers of a hidden treasure, scholars kindled their lamps and read the messages in ancient Hebrew. 
They thought they knew, even before they began to read, that the tablets were some six hundred years 
older than the oldest known Hebrew inscription. The discovery was startling: hundreds of years before 
the Israelites entered Canaan, the Canaanites not only used Hebrew (5) but wrote it in an alphabetic 
script (6). Alphabetic writing in the fifteenth century before the present era was a revelation for 


paleographers and scholars in the history of human culture. "Since these documents date from the 
fourteenth or fifteenth century, the Ras Shamra alphabet is among the first alphabets to be composed, 
and actually is the earliest yet known. " (7) The Hebrew-cuneiform alphabet of Ras Shamra is not a 
primitive pioneer effort; it has features that indicate it was already in an advanced stage. "The Ras 
Shamra alphabet is already so advanced that it implies the existence of a still earlier alphabet yet to be 
found (8)". 

Footnotes: (1) irolleaud, "Les Inscriptions CTin&fonnes," Syria, X (1929), 305. (2) H. Bauer and E. 
Dhonne, independently, in 1930. (3) H. L Ginsberg, Kttvei Ugarit, Jerusalem, 1936 (4) 'L'alphabet de Ras 
Shamra doit-il done Stre consider comme le prototype da sytlabaire chypriote? II peut sans doute 
paraitre etrange quvne ecriture tres simplife ait pu, a la longae, se compliquer a nouveau. . . ." 
Virolleaud, TLes Inscriptions cun6ifonnes, Syria, X (1929), 309. (5) "This was already inferred from 
Semitic words met in the el-Amarna letters (6) Some of the cuneiform texts in old Hebrew, found in Ras 
Shamra, bear reference to the south of Palestine-Canaan (Negeb), and for a high reason Proto- 
Phoenician and Canaanite are applied ad libitum to- the tongue". 

2) pg. 191: "The meter of the poems, the division into feet of three syllables or three words, and the 
balancing of the theme (parallelism) are also found in the Scriptures (18) "These rules are precisely those 
of Hebrew poetry, and even the language from some of our Ras Shamra texts is entirely Biblical (19). It 
was therefore concluded that Hebrew and Phoenician alike derived from the Canaanite, which could be 
called an Early Hebrew dialect (20)". 

Footnotes: (17) Jack, The Ras Shamra Tablets, p. 10. (18) Ibid. (19) Schaeffer, Cuneiform Texts, p. 58, 
quoting Dussaud, Syria, revue - Tart oriental et darcheologte, XVI (1935), 198. (20) Thissaud, Les 
Decowoertes, p. 50; J. A. Montgomery and Z. S. Harris, The Eos Shamra Mythokgical Texts (Phikdelpnia, 
1935), p. 16)". 

3) pg. 194: "Since 1930 when the tablets of Ras Shamra were deciphered, they have been regarded as 
proofs of(l) that already in the fifteenth century Hebrew was written in a highly perfected alphabetic 
script that had a long period of development behind it, and (2) that many biblical traditions and legends 
were alive, and biblical style, poetic form, and ways of expression were in use some six hundred years 
before the biblical books were composed, even according to rabbinical tradition". 

4) pg. 195: "Now the same ideas and similar expressions were found on Ras Shamra tablets of a period 
six or seven hundred years before the time of the earlier prophets. With the present documents the 
history of the Hebrew language and of Syrian culture is pushed back toward the middle of the second 
pre-Christian millennium (2) All proofs of late origin and all deductions based thereon become null and 
void before the evidence of the clay tablets (3)". 

Footnotes: (2) Montgomery and Harris, Mythological Texts, p. 1. (3) Reuss, Graf et Wellhausen...on ne 
peut manquer de reviser leurs conclusions, en ce qui touche la basse poque et le pen de valeur des 
anciennes traditions Israelites" Dussaud, Les De couvertes, p. 115)". 


Alan & Theosophy? 

Alan no doubt exposes Theosophy and its connection to Freemasonry, and mentions Blavatsky & Bailey 
in his MP3s- but he derides it as bunk (the trick of charlatans etc). Indeed, in his written work, he makes 
no mention at all of theTheosophy-Freemasonry-UN-Ascended-Masters-Maitreya-connection. Also, 
when we examine Alan's theories regarding the Bible, we can see that he is subtly promoting 
theosophical concepts (despite exposing it to some degree). Most importantly, Alan maintains the belief 
in demons/entities, and he has told a story on his own show 'Cutting Through The Matrix' when (once 
whilst attending some party for musicians/actors) a girl in the wee hours (after most had left or passed 
out) had came floating down the staircase towards him, spoke to him in a voice that wasn't hers, red 
glowing eyes, strange presence, and then floated back up the stairs. Alan has also revealed that he 
believes that the Masons in the highest degrees share their bodies with entities. It must also be noted 
that Alan believes in the UFO phenomenon, but he firmly maintains that they're all craft made here on 
Earth by governments with advanced technologies (and I would agree with him on that, as I haven't 
seen anything to make me think that the phenomenon is attributable to something from outer-space). 
But I also agree with Alan that the paranormal is real, so couldn't aspects of the UFO phenomenon be 
related to it? John Todd, the famous llluminati-defector turned Christian that got murdered, once told a 
story where a girl that he knew when he was younger (someone involved with the occult and secret 
societies) would go out into a field at night, perform some kind of spell/ritual and then summon these 
"entities' that would then float around the sky like UFOs (panicking the citizens of the town). So if Alan 
believes in demons/entities, then why doesn't he take Theosophy's 'Ascended Masters' more seriously? 
(the supposed spirit beings that are guiding Mankind along the 'Plan'). In 'Cutting Through 1', he calls 
them just a "rehash of the Egyptian Book of the Dead" (pg. 9). Is Alan steering us in another direction by 
not stressing the spiritual aspect to the whole NWO-conspiracy? If he did, it would end up invariably 
validating the Bible (as it mentions these entities, and warns of their deceptions). 

Alan on entities being trapped here: 

"Alan: It's more than just that. You can achieve "spiritual awareness" you might say, by yourself. If your 
soul is seeking it, you will achieve it; or you can try to take the short-cut of the world, which is to join a 
Freemasonic society in one of its many thousands of names and try to get it by degrees, which is basically 
taking entities into you with each degree that you take. These entities, since they are the ones who were 
cast here in the first place, they are imprisoned here, so their prison is the world. Therefore, they have a 
certain amount of power in the world. That's what I would like to say. They are imprisoned. They cannot 
go beyond the world. That's why their boast is always to conquer space and rise higher than the Creator, 
because this world and its atmosphere is their prison" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie 
Patru Aug. 31 st 2004). 

Alan on how the Masons in the higher degrees channel entities: 

"Alan: What it was to do was to actually get people into this whole thing of channeling basically. Jackie: 
I would think that would be very, very dangerous. Alan: Oh yes. I mean if you're bringing something into 
you and you're taking its word that it is what it says it is and you're opening up a doorway which it then 


can then come in any time it wishes to. I've no doubt on that because that's something I don't believe, it's 
something I've experienced in other people which I couldn't deny. There is no scientific explanation but 
I've seen people you might say "possessed. " Jackie: That you could actually see that it wasn't them 
when they were talking? Alan: Yes. I couldn't contradict it, couldn't deny it and there's no scientific 
explanation for it. When you study Masonry and all of the groups including the higher Wiccanism, all the 
groups that are running the show today basically in religion, they're all into channeling entities and the 
higher Masons do this. They channel entities" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru Jan. 
18 th 2005). 

Alan on his own 'possession experience 7 : 

"Megan: Yes I am. Alan, I'm glad he mentioned that levitating with the red eyes or people with red eyes 
because I do listen to your shows that other people interviewed you and I was going to ask you about 
that woman that floated down the steps and she had red eyes. What do you think that was? Alan: Well, 
even when it was happening I was the only person left standing. It was someone who was married to a 
famous producer in Hollywood and at that time she had bought a big place in Toronto and I was asked to 
go there just for a small get-together. It wasn't even a party really and I went there with a couple of 
people. One of them was from a well-known band in Britain, a famous band, and I was about the last 
person standing. I was going to walk home. Everybody else had gone to their beds. I was standing having 
a brandy, and yes I do occasionally drink a brandy, and just then she floated down these Hollywood type 
wide stairs she had put in and literally floated and I watched it happen thinking, oh-oh, it's something 
they slipped in this drink or something. All that was running through my mind. I wasn't even panicking. I 
was just watching it, almost studying it, and she floated, she floated all the way up to me and mumbled 
a few things to me. I'd seen that kind of face before, mind you. It really is a feeling to it as well as the 
look and then I declined her offer. I said that "not tonight Josephine" and she spun around on a top and 
floated all the way back up and I'm standing thinking about this and Keith the guy that had come with 
me, he got up. I thought he was sleeping in the corner and he said did I see something or did I 
hallucinate? I swore that female just floated down the stairs there. I said well thank goodness we've both 
shared the same hallucination because I wanted a witness and I never thought I would have one. These 
weird things to happen to you but I'm used to sort of paranormal stuff, although I don't push it into the 
New Age vector. I think it's beyond that. I think the New Age is a complete deception. However, the eyes 
definitely were almost - there was no pupils. It was like they were turned right back in her head and it 
was just pinky red and it's not something I like to see in the middle of night, mind you, if I was in my bed 
or something, but it certainly did happen. Megan: Do you think she was a demon ? Alan: I knew she was 
involved in a high cult, I found out later, a high cult and she also had connections with Prince. You know 
the Prince that does all the weirdo stuff and pushes this sort of black side of the New Age, so I take that 
with a grain of salt, but she definitely was involved in some high cults from California, Los Angeles. 
Megan: Then you mentioned that you saw a shapeshifter, that you saw people do shapeshifting. Alan: 
You don 't really see them shapeshift. What you'll see and this guy was a very high Mason and what you'll 
see is almost like superimposed features come upon them. You know it's not coming from their skin. It's 
almost like a second outer layer of kind of misty - you might say it's in your mind eye, as they used to say 
in ancient times. You see something. A child can feel things and say so-and-so doesn't feel right to me. 


It's kind of like that. You see something come over them. Sometimes you will see the pupils constricted, 
very, very tiny pupils if they get excited these particular people. Strangely enough, he was one of the 
guys at his age who could run. He did run with a massive ladder. It was a long ladder, 40-footer, heavy 
duty, in the middle of summer. He was in his 70's and he ran about 100 yards to the house to get them 
and run back, and when he stood up after putting them down, his mouth wasn't even open to breathe 
heavy. He had told me there was a tradeoff they get when they bring on an entity and that's part of it, 
they get this kind of strength. Megan: Oh wow. Okay, well thank you Alan: Thanks for calling. Megan: 
Bye. Alan: It sounds really way out there, but there's far much more in this world that meets the eye and 
there's definitely evil. It's not the first Mason who told me and it wasn't the last either that told me the 
same high ritual when they go on the stage and take on an entity. That's what they used to call "perfect 
possession, " when they get up to a high degree where the entity is at home with them and they're at 
home with entity. I think Malachi Martin used to talk about that kind of stuff, but Malachi brought so 
much of the old dogma from the church into it unfortunately, although his descriptions of these events 
February 13, 2008). 

Alan on the Christ Consciousness within: 

"Jackie: how do you differentiate soul and mind? Alan: With the higher consciousness which is what 
everybody has to come to, whether they like it or not, you either go along with the group or you fight 
your way out of it. That higher consciousness, as I say, that part of God (I don't say you're God) but that 
part of God within you is the Christ within you. It's a higher consciousness, really. The ancients didn't 
differentiate at all because they realized you're either programmed, in other words, you had no mind or 
soul, or your soul was in you, which would cancel out the programming. You're either aware of you're not 
aware. They said most people went through their whole lives never being conscious or aware that they 
were a soul. Again, it's very elitist" (pg. 214 'Waiting for the Miracle' - 1998). 

Alan on Lucifer, the Fallen Angels, and the Elites 

"Alan: It's really the original religion behind all of the facades, and you find it again in the writings of 
Egypt and Sumer, and what the elites claimed is that they must interbreed so carefully with close kin for 
a very special reason. It's puzzled all the researchers who have gone into this angle of it; why the 
necessity of worldwide aristocracy for this intense inbreeding and the pharaohs, or at least the priests 
who looked after the pharaohs, wrote about this and wrote about their ceremonies associated with this. 
What they claim is that their bodies are the descendents of the original bodies that were created when 
these beings or spirits or demons or angels were cast down to earth; and through their own will power 
they formed, from all the materials around them, through pure thought and will power, perfect bodies to 
occupy. Jackie: That is interesting that the physical body contains all of the elements that are in the 
earth. Alan: Yes. However, they claim that since the closest thing from the Creator who had cast them 
here or imprisoned them here, they retained some of these special powers of creation within themselves 
and as time went on, these powerful beings that could basically move objects, huge objects just by mind 


power alone began to lose these powers because they began to interbreed with the original species here, 
so there was an original species here. And the laws came out to command them to start interbreeding 
once again to get back to the original forms where they could use this "mental ability" you might say; the 
royalty, the elite of every country as well. If you look at flags of every country you'll see all of the symbols 
of what you think of today as the illuminati. You've got the rising sun for Japan. You've got the dragon 
which is China and so you can go on and on and the modern flags have so many pyramids on them it's 
incredible. The Union Jack is 'illumined man', is Andrew's Cross with the Templar Cross in the middle. 
Every flag you look at. South American flags are just amazing with their pyramids, so it's everywhere. It's 
a worldwide aristocracy and that's the reason for their intense inbreeding. If they breed out of their 
stock, the offspring will not have the powers; and here's the key to it. They believe so intensely in 
reincarnation of their own original spirits into their own family lineages that they must have the DNA of 
the family lineage to keep the perfect body so that the perfect spirit will manifest itself into it. Do you 
understand that so far? They used to have a ceremony of the "opening of the mouth" they called it. 
When a pharaoh died, they go through this elaborate ceremony, this was to retain the spirit of the 
deceased pharaoh, and then they would transplant it literally, supposedly, into his son. Therefore, you 
could be a host for your own spirit and your father's at the same time. If the son wasn't there at the time, 
they claimed that they could transplant the spirit or energy into a statue - a statue could be anything, a 
container, in other words, or a scientific device, who knows? - and then bring it back out later when the 
son arrived home. All of the world aristocracy believe in this intensely, and that's why they believe they 
are so clever and they are the original physical DNA of the original bodies that the fallen ones created, 
and they are also hosting the spirits of the original angels that fell here. Jackie: Their god is Jove? Alan: 
[Their god is] Jove, Jupiter, Lucifer is just as good. Jackie: You were talking about the elite and their 
bloodlines and I asked if their god was Jove and you said yes, Jove, Jupiter, actually Lucifer. When I did a 
search you were on at one time and you had said that Jove, Jehovah, Jupiter, "by George" were all the 
same "god. " I've come to that realization more and more as this book is being compiled because I've 
done searches and I found an old Masonic - this was like 200 years ago and they said that a song was 
played to the tune of "God Save the King", which I found out is also the tune that "My Country 'Tis of 
Thee" is sung to. They talked in there about Lord, Jove, Jehovah, God is how it was said, and so 
that was a Masonic song". - "Jackie: And you had said that their god is Lucifer. Alan: Albert Pike 
said it in one of the highest Masonic books ever written and so did Madame Blavatsky. She 
called her newspaper Lucifer, eventually called the Lucius Trust. Lucifer was the rebel. He was 
the chief magician amongst the angels and he led a rebellion against the Creator himself 
supposedly. According to the elite, man would be in darkness today (meaning ignorance and 
primitiveness and "arrested civilization" as they call it), if Lucifer hadn't brought intellect and 
intelligence down to show the people and to rule over the people. This is the religion of all 
aristocracy. That's what they all believe in" (Alan on the 'Sweet Liberty Show' with Jackie Patru 
Aug. 25 th 2004). 

In fairness, Alan does give out truth in some areas (i.e when it comes to the modern agenda, 
and all of its various think-tank reports and from-the-horses-mouth-elite-writings), and of 
course, he goes into Freemasonry better than most. But when it comes to Theosophy, he's 


sometimes shady, doesn't say much in his written work, but in terms of the Bible, his views are 
clearly theosophical. But here's a great bit, where Alan spills the beans (and that's generally 
how it works, him usually giving out some truth to go along with the bullshit- especially in his 
interviews with Jackie, as they occur over long spans of time, and allow certain topics to be 
brought up again and again). Alan tells Jackie that the elites of the world secretly worship 
Lucifer, the leader of the fallen angels, and he even elaborates on their belief in reincarnated- 
spirits/entities. But what demarcates Alan from other anti-Theosophical interpreters is his 
extreme position on the Bible (he says that the entire thing is all astro-theology, courtesy of the 
Mystery Religion). But if Lucifer is truly the God whom the elites/Freemasons/ theosophists 
worship (seeing him as a Force whom they can derive actual mental/spiritual power from), then 
it becomes a stretch to claim that the entire Bible was created by the Mystery Religion (by the 
very people/organization that worship him- for the Bible directly opposes Lucifer: it exposes his 
treachery in both the Old & New T., and arrogantly proclaims his spectacular destruction on 
Judgment Day (after being chucked into a Lake of Fire in front of all the righteous). The Bible 
names Lucifer as the leader of the fallen angels, and it stresses over and over how beautifully 
deceptive and evil he is, and how he had it good in God's kingdom until he led a rebellion and 
started a war in Heaven. Because they all adored Knowledge/the Godhood within & usually 
some kind of rebel/liberator-type-figure who was responsible for the introduction of it (the 
Mysteries), a'la Thoth/Prometheus/Hermes-type figure, all ancient 

esoteric/theosophical/Gnostic groups were Luciferians at a fundamental level (in the strict 
sense that they venerated the qualities of Lucifer (primarily Reason and Intellect)). Alan would 
probably respond with something like, 'but they wanted to set up antithetical spiritual 
polarities, one being the Luciferian/Mystery Religion, the other Christianity- in the hopes of 
achieving a new kind of synthesis down the road (thus bestowing more power and control into 
their laps, opening the way for something entirely new). If the elites/controllers/secret societies 
view the Luciferian system as something ultimately disposable, part of the ongoing Ordo ab 
chao Dialectic- then the idea that the Mystery Religion seeded the Bible could have some 
plausibility, but if the elites & the Freemasons have no plan to get rid of the Luciferian system, 
then it becomes harder to believe that the entire Bible was written by the Mystery Religion (as 
Alan claims). In regards to this, something very relevant is Albert Pike's letter to Mazzini (both 
33 rd Degree Freemasons): in it, he brags how in the future, after the 3 rd World War, the masses 
will be given the Luciferian light and doctrines. Alan repeatedly says that the Old Testament is 
the Masons beloved "rule-book", but only a careful reading of the biblical text will reveal if it 
was created by the Mystery Religion, or if it was made in genuine opposition to it.